SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LISA GILL, RITU TAGORE, JJ.
Manpreet Kaur – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 25384 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 02-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate; For the Petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.25384, 25492, 25526, 25528 and 25531 of 2022.
Mr. Nikhil Vats, Advocate; For the Petitioner in CWP No.27875 of 2022.
Mr. Sarfaraz Anjum Mor, Advocate; For the Petitioner in CWP No.24752 of 2022.
Mr. Aman Bahri, Addl.AG, Haryana.
Mr. Harshit Jangra, Advocate for Mr. Anil Mehta, Advocate and Mr. Nishant Indal, Advocate for Respondent No.5 in CWP No.25384 of 2022.
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.5 in CWP Nos.25492, 25531 and 25526 of 2022. and respondent No.6 in CWP Nos.25528 and 25384 of 2022.
Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate for Respondent No.6 in CWP No.27875 of 2

Headnote:(A) Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Section 175(1)(n) - Candidature cancellation - Writ petitions involved candidates contesting for Sarpanch/Panch post who allegedly disqualified due to unauthorized possession of Gram Panchayat land. Court directed inquiry into disqualification claims as per Section 177 of the Act. (Paras 2, 3, 8, 9, 11)

(B) Election law - The requirement for candidates to not be in unauthorized possession of Gram Panchayat land to be eligible for election to the post of Sarpanch/Panch under the Act.

(C) Procedural adherence - Court emphasized that due process should be followed in assessing disqualification claims. (Paras 8, 9, 11)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner claimed unauthorized possession of Gram Panchayat land by candidates disqualified under Section 175(1)(n). Election proceeded while proceedings were stayed and interim order vacated.

Findings of Court:
Inquiry mandated for submitted complaints regarding disqualification as per Section 177 to be resolved within three months.

Issues: Whether candidates under unauthorized possession can hold positions as Sarpanch/Panch.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the eligibility of candidates to contest or hold elected office must comply with statutory requirements, necessitating an inquiry to determine the legitimacy of claims regarding unauthorized possession of Gram Panchayat land.

Result: Writ petitions disposed of with direction for inquiry and decision on candidature disqualification.

Table of Content
1. adjudication of identical issues (Para 1 , 2)
2. claims of disqualification based on unauthorized land possession (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. summary of multiple writ petitions and their outcomes (Para 6)
4. court's consideration of disqualification enquiry under section 175 (Para 7 , 8)
5. need for a proper enquiry into eligibility (Para 9)
6. direction for expeditious decision on disqualification applications (Para 10 , 11)
7. disposal of writ petitions with no opinion on merits (Para 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J.

All the above-mentioned writ petitions are taken up together for adjudication and decision as they involve an identical issue.

2. Notice of motion was first issued in CWP No.25384 of 2022, thereafter other writ petitions were directed to be heard alongwith CWP No.25384 of 2022. In all the writ petitions prayer is for cancelling the candidature of private respondents therein, who were contesting election for the post of Sarpanch/Panch, on the ground that said candidates are disqualified to contest/hold the post of Sarpanch/Panch in terms of provisions of Section 175 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

3. It is pleaded in CWP No.25384 of 2022 that respondents No.5 and 6 are disqualified for contesting elections to the post of Sarpanch in terms of Section 175 (1)(n) of the Act on the ground that they are in unauthorized possession of Gram Panchayat land. It is averred that respondent No.5 is in established unauthorized possession of one House No.68K, which is constructed on land comprised in Killa No.32//6, village Garhi Langri, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra and respondent No.6 is in established unauthorized possession of one House No.72A which is also situated on the land in Killa No.32//6 of village Garhi Langri. It is pleaded that Killa No.32//6 is owned by Gram Panchayat of village Garhi Langri. Reference has been made to certain petitions filed by the Gram Panchayat for ejectment of unauthorized occupants of the said land. It is thus pleaded that respondents No.5 and 6 who have filed their nomination papers for contesting election to the post of Sarpanch of village Garhi Langri are disqualified for the same. Petitioner in CWP No.25384 of 2022, who was also a contender for the post of Sarpanch submitted two separate complaints/objections before respondent No.3, the Returning Officer, for cancellation of candidature of respondents No.5 and 6 on the ground of their disqualification under Section 175 (1)(n) as they are alleged to be in unauthorised possession of Gram Panchayat land. Grievance raised in this writ petition is that no action was being taken on the basis of the complaints submitted by the petitioner and that in the given circumstances respondents No.5 and 6 should be restrained from contesting the election in question.

4. Notice of motion was issued in CWP No.25384 of 2022 by a coordinate Bench on 07.11.2022 and election proceedings qua village Garhi Langri were directed to be stayed. However, said interim order was vacated on 11.11.2022 and election to the post of Sarpanch of village Garhi Langri was conducted on 30.11.2022. Ms. Ranjeet Kaur, respondent No.6, has been elected to the post of Sarpanch.

5. Reply by way of Status Report in CWP No.25384 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 wherein it is affirmed that as per Jamabandi for the year 2020-2021, the land comprised in Khewat 129, Khasra No.32//6, 10 and 11, 24//17/2 is owned by Gram Panchayat, Garhi Langri. As per report of the Revenue Officer (Tehsildar), Pehowa, respondents No.5 and 6 were not personally found to be in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land. It has been asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the father-in- law/husband of the said respondents, who are recorded as the owners of the house in question and the said respondents are very well residing in the same house, therefore, it cannot be said that they are not in illegal possession of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top