Monday, January 7, 2013

In Other Courts, Punjab: Makhan Masih vs State Of Punjab And Others...7 November, 2012


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.14121 of 2011
Date of Decision: NOVEMBER 7, 2012
 
Makhan Masih......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others......Respondents


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. VK Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Anu Pal, AAG, Punjab for the State.
Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
 


RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner, who is Panch, was suspended on 29.4.2011 on the ground that he is in illegal occupation of the Panchayat land, where he constructed a shop. As per the counsel for the petitioner, the said order is based on the finding returned by the authorities on an application under Section 7 of Punjab Village Common Land (Regulating) Act (for short 'the Act') filed by a private person. The said order of the Collector & Commissioner, is stayed by this Court in CWP No.12351 of 2011. The submission made by C.W.P. No.14121 of 2011 -2- the counsel for the petitioner is that since the application under Section 7 of the Act was not maintainable by a private individual, accordingly, any finding returned thereon cannot be considered to order suspension of the petitioner on the ground that he has occupied the Panchayat land over which he has constructed a shop also.

The impugned order passed by the Director Rural Development and Panchayat Department is annexed with the petition as Annenxure P-3. The Director Rural Development and Panchayat Department has received a report from District Development and Panchayat Officer on 4.3.2011, who had earlier received a report form the Block Development & Panchayat Officer on 28.2.2011 where an inquiry against Makhan Masih, Panch Gram Panchayat Sekha, was conducted and it is proved that the Panch has encroached upon two marlas Panchayat land out of Khasra No.76, (1-18) by constructing illegal shop and in this manner he has misused his position.

On the basis of this allegation, the petitioner was put to notice. He was asked to respond to the allegations. The reply submitted by the petitioner was perused and after considering the same it was found that the petitioner has encroached upon two marlas of Panchayat land on the Khasra number as already mentioned. On this basis, the Director Rural Development and Panchayat Department, has placed the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the appellate authority, who has dismissed his appeal.

C.W.P. No.14121 of 2011 -3- In the impugned order, no reference is made to any finding returned under Section 7 of the Act which has been found the basis of placing the petitioner under suspension. Accordingly, this issue does not arise in the present petition. Since the petitioner has placed under suspension on the basis of report, no case for interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court is made out. Dismissed.

November 07, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE




No comments:

Post a Comment