Rajinder Singh vs Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana and Others

R.S. Narula, J.—The facts relevant for the decision of this petition lie in a very narrow compass. Rajinder Singh petitioner and Balbir Singh, respondent No. 3, were contestants at the election for the post of a Sarpanch from the Gram Panchayat, Galab Kalan, This election was held on 6th January 1964. Against the nomination papers of Balbir Singh respondent No. 3, an objection was raised by the petitioner to the effect that the contesting respondent was disqualified from standing for the post of a Sarpanch under clause (b) of sub-section (5) of section 6 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act (IV of 1953). The disqualification is in the following words-

No person who is not a member of the Sabha and who-

* * * *

(1) is a tenant or lessee holding a tenancy or lease under the Gram Sabha

***

shall be entitled to stand for election as, or continue to be a Sarpanch or Panch.

The relevant facts are not in dispute. Balbir Singh had given a bid for the lease of immovable property under the Gram Panchayat and had gone to the length of paying the initial deposit of one-fourth of the bid money. It is also stated that this bid had been accepted by a resolution of the Gram Panchayat. It is further not disputed that Balbir Singh himself never took possession of the land and never cultivated it himself. The allegation of the petitioner is that the balance amount of the lease was paid by the petitioner under the name of Mukhtiar Singh and possession was taken by him. On the other hand, Balbir Singh respondent No. 3 states that he had no concern with Mukhtiar Singh, that he did not pay the balance three-fourths amount of the bid money and that he never held the lease and never took possession of the land.

At the election held on 6th January, 1964 Balbir Singh secured highest number of votes and was declared elected. Rajinder Singh petitioner lost the election and filed an election petition on or about 24th February, 1964 which was disposed of by the impugned order, copy of which has been filed with this petition and is marked as Annexure ''A''. The principal issue framed in the case by the Election Tribunal was to the following effect :

Whether the respondent was a lessee of the Gram Panchayat and as such he was disqualified u/s 6(5) (1) of the Gram Panchayat Act.

The Election Tribunal who was the Ilaqa Magistrate found that Balbir Singh had never paid the balance bid money, that on the receipt for the balance of the three-fourths amount the words "Balbir Singh Wale" had been written subsequently in a different ink and that apparently this entry had been made by the Panchayat Secretary with the connivance of Ujjagar Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, probably after the filing of the election petition. The finding of the Magistrate on the issue framed was that even if the contesting respondent had given bid for taking Panchayat land on lease, he had not taken possession of it and as such he was not disqualified under the relevant provision reproduced above.

The present petition has been filed by Rajinder Singh under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order of the Ilaqa Magistrate dated the 30th April 1964''referred to above. At the outset I may state that though I have heard the parties in this case on merits, this judgment may not in any circumstances be taken as a precedent for holding that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would lie in a case like this.

The only question decided in the impugned order is a pure question of fact. Mr. Toor, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not contest the proposition that it is not within the jurisdiction of this Court in proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution to hear arguments on disputed questions of fact decided by election Tribunals and to give a fresh decision on a reappraisal of the evidence. The learned counsel has, however, contended that even if the findings of the Tribunal on the question of fact are correct, Balbir Singh should be held to be disqualified under the above mentioned provisions of law, as the mere acceptance of his bid constituted a lease which is hit by the said provision.

I regret I am unable to agree with this contention. "Lease'''' as defined in section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, is a transfer of a right to enjoy immovable property. The facts found in the case do not amount to any transfer. The mere acceptance of a bid for the grant of a lease may amount to a completed contract enforceable by law, but does not amount to a lease. Inherent in a lease is a demise of the property. There had been no demise of the land in this case. The lease itself never came into existence. The consideration for lease was not completed by Balbir Singh Neither possession of the land nor ''any other interest in it was ever transferred to respondent No. 3. The barring provision specifically requires that the person concerned should not only be a lessee but, in order to be hit by the disqualification, must also be holding the lease at the relevant time. Balbir Singh never held the lease in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to cite any authority in support of the proposition enunciated by him. I find no force in it and do not feel the slightest hesitation in repelling it.

No other point has been raised or argued before me. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.