State of Punjab and Another vs Baj Singh and Another

Harjit Singh Bedi, J.—By the present judgment we propose to dispose of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1501 of 1991 filed by the Gram Panchayat Chottian Kalan and Letters Patent Appeal No. 174 of 1992 filed by the State of Punjab, both the appeals being against theimpugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10th October, 1991, allowing the writ petition in favour of the private respondent Baj Singh. The facts have been taken from the latter case.

The writ petitioner (hereinafter called the respondent'') was elected Sarpanch of the, Gram Panchayat Chottian Kalan, Tehsil Moga, District Faridkot, in the elections held in 1974. A complaint was made against him alleging that he had grabbed the land of the Gram Panchayat by getting sale deeds executed in his favour and in favour of his close relatives. On account of the misconduct attributed, a regular inquiry was held by the NaibTehsildar under the provisions of Section 102(1) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the ''Act). The inquiry officer found that the respondent, in connivance with the officials of the Revenue Department, had distributed land measuring 137 kanals 4 marlas which stood mutated in favour of the Shamlat Deb. A show cause notice was thereafter issued to the Sarpanch as to why he should not be removed from his office. A reply was submitted by him and he was also given a personal hearing in which he denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that despite his best efforts it had not been possible for him to stop the sale of the land as it stood entered in the revenue record as Mustarka Malkan as the mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat alleged to have been entered in the year 1968 had not been reflected in the Jamabandi. The plea of the respondent was rejected and he was ordered to be removed from the office of the Sarpanch vide order of the Joint Director, Panchayats dated 2nd February, 1989, Annexure P10 to the petition. The appeal filed by the respondent against the aforesaid order too was dismissed by the Joint Secretary to Government Punjab on 17th October, 1989, Annexure P11 to the petition. Both the authorities under the Act found that the respondent had in connivance with the revenue officials secured the transfer of 137 kanals 4 marlas of land and that the aforesaid land had been transferred either in his own name or that of his close relatives. Aggrieved by the orders Annexures P10 and P11, the respondent filed the writ petition which, as already indicated above, has been allowed. The learned single Judge did not go into the question as to whether the conduct of the respondent in securing transfer of the land in question, in his own or in his relatives'' names amounted to misconduct or not but proceeded on the basis that the land in question was Bachat Land and, therefore, did not vest in the Gram Panchayat and the sales made thereof did not ipso facto amount to misconduct on the part of the respondent. For arriving at this conclusion, the learned single judge relied on the report of the Naib Tehsildar Moga in which it had been stated that 186 kanals 3 marlas of land remained unutilized from the total area reserved for the common purpose of the village at the time of consolidation proceedings held in the year 195657 and this land was accordingly to be treated as Bachat Land. The learned single judge on this basis found that 137 kanals 4 marlas of land which had been sold by the proprietors of the village was Bachat Land and as such did not vest in the Gram Panchayat and its transfer, therefore, did not amount to misconduct on the part of the respondent so as to warrant his removal.

Mr. I.S. Vimal, Advocate and Mr. H.S. Rair, Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the appellants have, however, urged that !he case of the respondent was fully covered under the provisions of Section 102(1)(d) of the Act inasmuch as that the respondent had been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties and his continuance in office was undesirable in the public interest. In support of this assertion, they have urged that right from the year 1968 when the land was mutated in favour of the Gram Panchayat it was being leased out by the Panchayat itself to various persons from time to time and in the year 197879 the respondent himself had leased out the aforesaid land and the very next year he connived to have it sold largely to himself and his relatives. They have emphasised that even independent of the question as to the true nature of the land, this action of the respondent amounted to misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a Sarpanch as he was expected to act as the custodian of the property of the Gram Panchayat. It has also been argued that in any case the question as to whether the land was Bachat land or not, was a matter to be determined by a proper forum and that was under section 7 or 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 1961 Act). It has finally been asserted that the learned, single Judge fell in error in rendering his decision solely on the basis of the report of the NaibTehsildar which could not be taken in evidence as the appellants had no chance to rebut its contents.

Mr. J.N. Kaushal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent has, however, sought to support the order of the learned single Judge by stating that the entries in the Jamabandi were in favour of the Mustarka Malkans who were entitled to sell the same and that, in any case, the land reserved in the consolidation scheme for the income of the Gram Panchayat such as the one in the present case could not be said to be Shamlat Deb. He has also urged that the Bachat land belonged to the owners and that they were accordingly entitled to sell the same. In support of his argument he has relied on Chhaju Ram v. The Joint Director Panchayats and others, 1986 PLJ 293 : 1986 R.R.R. 105, Gram Panchayat Gunia Majri v. Director Consolidation of Holdings and others, 1991 PLJ 46 : 1991(1) R.R.R. 371, Gurdial Singh and others v. The State of Haryana and others, 1979 PLJ 250 and Des Raj and another v. The Gram Sabha of village Ladhot, 1981 PLJ 300.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the records of the case. It has been stated before us that the respondent has since the year 1988 not been holding the office of Sarpanch consequential to the adverse orders passed against him. Admittedly, fresh elections to the Panchayats in the State have already been held and as such it would be futile at this juncture to dwell on the fact as to whether the conduct of the respondent amounted to misconduct or not. We are, however, of the view that the learned single judge did not have sufficient material before him to record a positive finding that the land in dispute was Bachat Land which vested in the proprietors as this was a matter to be determined by the competent authority under section 7 or 11 of the 1961 Act. The findings of the learned single judge are, therefore, set aside to this extent.

For the reasons recorded above the appeals are dismissed subject to the observations made above. We further make itdear that it will be open to any of the parties aggrieved to approach a competentauthority under the 1961 Act or any other forum which may be available in order to seek redress. There will, however, be no order as to costs.