Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 24(1) – Eviction u/s 24 (1) of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act – Validity of notices --  Adjudication made in Karambir’s case CWP No.14698 of 2023 : 2023(2) L.A.R. 638 -- Despite High Court has discounted the invocation of powers cast u/s 24 (1) of the Act by the Sarpanch of the Panchayat, yet the authority made brazen and arbitrary recourses to the provisions – No validly prepared demarcation report available with the Sarpanch, leading to arbitrary demolitions of structures – Registry of High Court directed to forthwith transmit the verdict to the Principal Secretary (Revenue), to the Government of Punjab and also to the Principal Secretary (Revenue), to the Government of Haryana, who shall thereafter transmit the same to all the Panchayats concerned, so that complete compliance is made by all concerned – If no actions have been taken on such arbitrarily issued notices, it shall be ensured that no further action is taken thereons -- Encroachments made on the land shall be removed, but only through recoursing the statutory provisions of the relevant statutes.

(Para 1-10)

A. Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (1 of 1994), Section 122 – Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, Rule 5, 6, 80 -- Recounting of votes – Non-making of request to returning officer – Effect of – Election petition for recounting – Maintainability of -- Petitioner having failed to make any application in writing for re-counting of votes and having failed to seek relief of declarations as required under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1995, the Election Petition filed by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer (R) seeking relief of re-counting of votes alone was not maintainable.

(Para 3, 15)

B. Interpretation -- Where a right or a liability is created by a statue, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by the statue must be availed of -- If a Statue provides for doing a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner.

(Para 12)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 20 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Enquiry against Sarpanch – Writ jurisdiction -- Petitioner/ Lambardar of the village has filed complaints against the Sarpanch for committing irregularities – Submission that prima facie case is there, however, no action has been taken on the complaints filed by the petitioner – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent to expedite the enquiry initiated and conclude the same expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within two months.

(Para 2-5)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 20, 22 -- Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Suspension of Sarpanch – Authorized Sarpanch -- Sitting Sarpanch suspended and out of 11 Panches, 8 Panches, i.e. petitioners No.2 to 8 are with petitioner No.1 – Petitioners submits that, petitioner No.1 be appointed as the authorised Panch in view of Section 22 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Writ petition disposed of with a direction DDPO to decide the representation given by petitioners in accordance with law preferably within one month.

(Para 1-5)

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 24 -- Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 11 -- Encroachment on Panchayat land – Notice/ Eviction u/s 24 of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Legality of -- Evidence in respect of encroachments may surface only in fully contested proceedings, launched u/s 7 or 11 of the 1961 Act – Issuance of notices u/s 24 of the Act held to made with lack of application of mind, cryptic, slipshod and in an ill-informed, therefore quashed and set aside – However, the Gram Panchayat may through a petition u/s 7 or 11 of the Act before the Collector seek the eviction of the encroachers.

(Para 6, 7)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 24, 26 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Quorum of Panchayat incomplete –Panchayat Secretary not writing down resolution -- Legal notice to handover charge from Panchayat Secretary to other official –  Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent to decide the legal notice within a period of two weeks.

(Para 1-5)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Municipal law – Removal of Encroachment – Demarcation of land – Public street made on petitioner’s land – Petitioner filed a representation before the respondent-Municipal council for carrying out demarcation of land of Municipal Council so that the encroachment on the land of the petitioner could be removed, however, till date Municipal Council has not carried out demarcation – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents to get demarcated the land within two weeks and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law.

(Para 1-4)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 17A (as amended by the Act of 2018) – Enquiry/ Inquiry/ investigation of offences -- Complaints against Panchayat officers/ Sarpanch -- Whether the protection under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the initiation of enquiry or inquiry or investigation without the previous approval of the competent authority is omnibus, universal and absolute so as to take within its sweep all the offences triable under the 1988 Act?”

-- Sufficient amount of fund under the various schemes is provided to the gram panchayats which is required to be spent under the overall guidance of the officials of the Rural Panchayat and Development Department -- In order to ensure that the funds are spent on the development and growth of the village, it is necessary to provide proper checks and balances – Office bearers who are covered by the definition of the public servants are required to be protected from the false complaints, however, at the same time, there is a requirement to bring transparency in use of the public funds -- In these circumstances, such public servants cannot be given a special privilege unless so intended by the Statute.

Writ petitions dismissed with the liberty to the petitioners to take all the objections before the Vigilance Bureau or before the trial Court.

(Para 31)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 20, 208 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Suspension of Sarpanch – Removal of Sarpanch – Writ petition -- Contention that on the complaint made by the petitioner, an inquiry was held and after inquiry, the District Development and Panchayat Officer vide its report had written to the Director that action as envisaged u/s 20 of the Act, 1994 be taken against the private respondents -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to Director Village Development and Panchayat Department to take a final decision on the recommendation within a period of one month in accordance with law after following the principles of natural justice and after giving due opportunities of hearing to respondents No.2 to 5.

(Para 1-4)

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (66 of 1957), Section 115, 115-A, 123D – Delhi Municipal Corporation (Property Tax) Bye-laws, 2004, Clause 9 – Property tax -- Professional activity by Advocates, architects and doctors – Commercial activity -- No tax can be levied in the absence of a statutory empowerment – Neither the Act nor the Bye-laws define “professional activity” carried out by advocates, architects and doctors, etc. -- Rule of strict interpretation of taxation statute has to be applied -- As the statute has not included “professional activity” of lawyers as “commercial activity” the former cannot be put to tax -- Bye-laws cannot seek to over-reach the statute itself -- Assessment order issued by the MCD u/s 123D of the DMC Act, 1957 alongwith any demand, rightly quashed.

(Para 13-16)

Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (42 of 1976), Section 246-A -- Ludhiana Municipal Corporation Building Bye-Laws, 1997, Bye-law 2(lix) -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Illegal and unauthorized commercial constructions – Removal of -- Writ of mandamus -- Case of the petitioner that construction is against the provisions of Chapter XIV of “Building Regulations” of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and the Ludhiana Municipal Corporation Building Bye-Laws, 1997 -- Writ Petition disposed of with directions to Commissioner, Municipal Corporation to look into the representation and after considering the same take appropriate action as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the persons against whom the action is sought to be taken.

(Para 1-4)

Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (16 of 1994), Section 408, 408-A – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Illegal encroachment – Unauthorized possession / construction -- Removal of – Writ of mandamus – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to Commissioner, Municipal Corporation to consider the legal notice, in accordance with law and also to take appropriate action therefrom after following due procedure of law as expeditiously as possible.

(Para 3)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 20, 208 – Suspension/ Removal of Sarpanch -- Illegal possession of shareaam raasta -- Legal notice by petitioner to various respondents – Since the power is vested with the Director to order an enquiry, thus, the Director Panchayat directed to look into the representation/ legal notice in accordance with law and in case he is of the opinion that any action is required to be taken with respect to the same, then the same would be taken, in accordance with law after following the principles of natural justice.

(Para 1-4)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 20, 208 -- Suspension and removal of a Panch/ Member Panchayat – Enquiry by Director Panchayat -- Illegal and unauthorized occupation of shamlat land – Director/Respondent No.2 directed to look into the representation and make necessary enquiry – In  case any action is required to be taken in the matter, then the same be done, in accordance with law and after giving the opportunity of hearing to respondents No.5 to 8.

(Para 1-4)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 20 -- Suspension of Sarpanch – Criminal Case under NDPS – Misuse of post – Stay of suspension -- Allegation that Petitioner has issued a wrong Job Card under MGNREGA and showing wrong presence in the muster roll -- Second charge regarding involvement in FIR u/s 22 of the NDPS Act – Petitioner has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail as she was nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused – Held, neither any violation of government guidelines dated 24.09.2020 is made out nor the direct involvement of the petitioner in FIR case is made out as she was not found in conscious possession of any contraband – Suspension of the petitioner stayed during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority.

(Para 8-11)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Encroachment on Panchayat land by Sarpanch/petitioner -- Demarcation of – All the parties are ready for the fresh demarcation – In case after demarcation of the area, it is found that the petitioner has encroached upon area of the Gram Panchayat and the same is in his possession, as undertaken by the petitioner, the said encroached area will be immediately vacated and the possession of the same will be given to the Gram Panchayat again and any construction done on the said encroached area will be demolished by the petitioner himself -- In case, the said construction on the said encroached area is not demolished by the petitioner within a period of four weeks, the Gram Panchayat will be within its jurisdiction to demolish the same.

(Para 9-11)

B. Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 20 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Suspension of Sarpanch -- Encroachment on Panchayat land by Sarpanch/petitioner -- Demarcation of – If after demarcation of the disputed area, it is found that some area belonging to the Gram Panchayat is encroached but the same is not in the possession of the petitioner, but is in the possession of somebody else, the petitioner undertakes that the appropriate proceedings for getting the said encroachment vacated will be initiated by the Gram Panchayat expeditiously without any fail by adopting the proper procedure as envisaged under law against the said encroacher by the petitioner being the Sarpanch of the village -- Order suspending him on the said allegation will not be given effect and will kept in abeyance till the fresh demarcation report is given by the revenue authorities -- In case the petitioner is found to have encroached upon any Government land, the said suspension order will automatically come into force once again.

(Para 12-14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 -- Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 53 – Embezzlement by Sarpanch – Recovery from Sarpanch -- It would be a matter of evidence whether the construction was done or not though payments had been withdrawn -- Interest of the petitioner can be protected to the extent that if the amount is deposited by him before the Trial Court, the said amount can be put in a fixed deposit receipt – Direction given that on deposit of said amount of Rs.6,61,370/- with the Trial Court, the same shall be kept in a fixed deposit receipt to earn the highest rate of interest during the pendency of the suit – Amount should be disbursed to the successful party at the end of the trial.

(Para 7-11)

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 49(1)(2), 51(3) – Removal of Sarpanch -- Appointment of Administrator -- Order of removal of Sarpanch set-aside and fresh enquiry ordered -- As the Sarpanch would now continue to function as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, the need for an Administrator no longer remains – Order appointing Administrator set aside, however, as the Sarpanch still remains under a cloud, it would be fit and proper that any decision taken by him and the Panches, having financial implications, should be vetted by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, before it is acted upon.

(Para 1-6)

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 51 -- Suspension of Sarpanch – Removal of Sarpanch – Show cause notice -- Rule of natural justice – Opportunity of hearing -- Section 51(3) of the Act of 1994 requires the 'opportunity of being heard' to be afforded to the Sarpanch prior to issuance of the final show-cause notice -- Effective opportunity must be given during the course of the inquiry – Said inquiry had to incorporate the bare minimum requirements spelt out by the precedential law set out :

Inquiry must conform to the basic principle that no man should be condemned unheard.

-- Bare minimums of an inquiry in this regard would be:

(1) clear and definite charge(s) must be given to the delinquent,

(2) the material forming the basis of the charge(s) must be made known to him and

(3) he must be given every opportunity to meet the charges and to defend himself. Even if the nature and scope of the inquiry was left to the discretion of the authorities, they still could not do away with the bare minimum requirements of an inquiry and subject thereto, the nature and scope of the inquiry would be in their discretion.

-- Obligation is cast upon the authorities to supply all the material on the basis of which the authority has formed a prima facie opinion for issuance of the notice, including a copy of the preliminary inquiry report, if any, along with the show-cause notice.

-- Non-consideration of the explanation of the Sarpanch and failure to pass a speaking order on such explanation would render the inquiry arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable.

In that view of the matter, the entire proceedings against the petitioner, based on the vitiated inquiry, fall to the ground -- In consequence, the proceedings against him would have to start from scratch, i.e., with an inquiry afresh, as deemed fit by the DC -- Petitioner's suspension pending the inquiry has to be kept in abeyance – However, as the petitioner still remains under a cloud, it would be fit and proper that every decision taken by him, having financial implications, should be vetted by the BDPO, before it is acted upon. Ujagar Singh’s case AIR 1970 Punjab 193 (Full Bench), Jagtar Singh’s case 2004 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 276 (DB) Hazari Lal, Sarpanch’s case 2003 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 465 DB relied.

(Para 21-37)

A. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 176 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 14 -- Election petition – Limitation of 30 days – Extension of – Permissibility of -- Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 is a complete code for the presentation of election petitions -- Statute has mandated that an election petition must be filed within a period of 30 days of the date of the declaration of results -- This period cannot be extended -- Provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 would clearly stand excluded.

(Para 9)

B. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 176 -- Election petition – Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh -- Limitation of 30 days – Extension of – Grant of liberty to file a fresh election petition cannot obviate the bar of limitation -- Fresh election petition filed by the first respondent was beyond the statutory period of 30 days and was hence liable to be rejected.

(Para 9)

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 51 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Suspension of Sarpanch – Appeal/Stay application pending -- Appointment of Acting Sarpanch – Challenge to -- State is directed to decide the appeal -- Petitioner is given liberty to move an application for taking up the application for interim stay -- In case such an application is moved within a period of one week, then State is directed to consider the same and pass necessary orders thereon in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner within a period of one week.

(Para 6)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 20, 208 – FIR against Sarpanch -- Suspension of Sarpanch -- Sub-section 1 of Section 20 enables the Sarpanch and Panch to be removed on the grounds mentioned in Section 208 but none of the grounds envisage suspension on the basis of registration of FIR -- Even if the challan has been presented, none of the grounds as envisaged in sub-section 4 of Section 20 are attracted so that the petitioners remain suspended -- Mere registration of FIR is no ground to suspend.

(Para 11-13)

A. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 51(2) – Suspension of Sarpanch/ Panch – Alleged illegal construction/ encroachment on panchayat land was raised 30/35 year back by father-in-law of the petitioner/Panch – Petitioner cannot be held liable for that – Suspension order set aside.

 (Para 17)

B. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 51(2)(3) – Suspension of Sarpanch/Panch – No order under section 51(3) of the Act, passed after suspension for one year – Panch/Sarpanch should be reinstated.

(Para 20)

C. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 51(1)(b) – Suspension of Sarpanch/Panch – Audi alteram partem -- Expression “adequate opportunity to explain” represents statutory embodiment of one of the fundamental postulates of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem which signifies that an authority entrusted with power to take action against any person should give an action-oriented notice to that person, consider his reply and pass order indicating application of mind.

(Para 10)