Ram Chander and another vs Additional District Judge and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order of the prescribed authority under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, whereby the election of the petitioner Ram Chander Singh as a Panch of the Gram Panchayat was set aside on the ground that he was in arrears of house tax and, therefore, was not eligible to contest the election as a Panch, which order was affirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, dated April 11, 1986, copy Annexure P. 2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it has been wrongly observed by the learned Additional District Judge that the endorsment by Sarpanch for the entry of 1983-84 has been owned by any responsible officer of the Government and as such, the Sarpanch stood isolated. It appears that this endorsement was later on deliberately introduced into the record to cause wrongful gain to the appellant Ram Chander Singh, otherwise, it has no force at all According to the learned counsel, the Gram Sachiv Kanwal Singh, appeared in the witness box as P.W. 6 and admitted that the endorsement, copy Annexure P. 3/1, was made by him and Sarpanch Fateh Singh also signed it. This evidence according to the learned counsel, has not been considered and, therefore, the finding arrived at was vitiated. It was also contended that on the date of scrutiny i.e. June 26, 1983, a sum of Rs. 33/- was paid by Amar Singh, the father of the petitioner Ram Chander Singh, as house-tax and in case the arrears were Rs. 84/- as alleged, the same could also be paid. Therefore, argued the learned counsel, there were no arrears and it was only Amar Singh, the father of the petitioner, who was to pay the house-tax which was duly paid on the date of scrutiny. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the endorsement copy. Annexure P. 3/1, has no legal sanctity as the amount of Rs. 84/- could not be reduced to Rs. 33/- by the Sarpanch or the Gram Sachiv. It was for the Gram Panchayat to consider and to reduce the amount in case it was wrongly entered.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties. I do not find any merit in this writ petition.

The learned Additional District Judge has observed in his order, copy Annexure P. 2, inter alia,-

From the numerous entries of this register (the house-tax register), it is quite clear that house-tax is being imposed on Ram Chander son of Amar Singh since 1981-82 and admittedly on 26.6.1983 he was in arrears of Rs. 84/-. If on the face value of it this entry is accepted, then Ram Chander is bound to suffer.

It has been further found by the learned Additional District Judge that if house-tax was being imposed on Ram Chander since 1981-82, then how at the time of scrutiny Sarpanch could delete the entry standing in the name of Ram Chander. In view of these observations and the findings of the authorities below, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record as to call for any interference in the writ jurisdiction.

Consequently, this writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs.