CWP No.1063 of 1988 :1:
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
CWP No.1063 of 1988
Date of decision: 09.09.2008
Dharam Chand ... Petitioner
Versus
The Joint Director Panchayats, Rural
Development and Panchayats, Punjab,
Chandigarh and othes. ... Respondents.
CORAM
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
Present: Mr.MS Kang, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.SS Sahu, AAG, Punjab,for the respondents.
PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.01.1988
(Annexure P-7), passed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer,
Garhshankar (Hoshiarpur), whereby demand for Rs.76988.65 P. has been
made from the petitioner and he is asked to deposit the same in the fund of
the Gram Panchayat within a period of ten days, failing which the
proceedings shall be initiated for recovery of the amount as arrears of land
revenue.
The petitioner was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Hajirpur,
from 1977 to September, 1983. Though he contested the elections in the
year 1983, but lost in said elections. It is stated in paragraph 5 of the writ
petition that before seeking re-election in the year 1983, he handed over the
CWP No.1063 of 1988 :2:
complete charge of Gram Panchayat property and other record etc. to the
then Panchayat Secretary Shri Surjit Singh against a proper receipt.
Thereafter, proceedings were initiated by the Block Development and
Panchayat Officer for effecting recovery from the petitioner and the
assessment order dated 23.02.1984 was passed by the Block Development
and Panchayat Officer. An appeal preferred before the District
Development and Panchayat Officer was also dismissed on 21.09.1984.
Thereafter, further revision was filed before the Joint Director, Panchayats,
(exercising the powers of Government). The Revisional Authority vide his
order dated 15.01.1985 directed the reconstruction of the record and fresh
assessment proceedings against the petitioner. It is alleged that without
reconstructing the record, alleged award was passed on 27.10.1986 by the
Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Garhshankar. This award also
came to be challenged before the District Development and Panchayat
Officer in appeal under Section 105 (3) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act.
Vide order dated 20.02.1987, the appeal was again accepted by the District
Development and Panchayat Officer, Hoshiarpur and the order of recovery
was set aside with a direction to reconstruct the record and fresh assessment
be made thereafter. It is thereafter that the impugned order dated
15.01.1988 has been passed which is under challenge in this petition.
In the reply filed by the respondents, in paragraph 10 thereof
that the respondents had given the details of the notices served upon the
petitioner. It is stated that after providing him sufficient and adequate
opportunities order dated 20.02.1987 (Annexure P-6) was passed which has
already been set aside by the Appellate Authority. Thereafter no opportunity
CWP No.1063 of 1988 :3:
seems to have been afforded to the petitioner nor any record was
reconstructed and the impugned order came to be passed without observing
the directions of the Revisional and Appellate Authorities as contained in
the earlier two orders dated 15.01.1985 and 20.02.1987.
In view of the above circumstances, the impugned order is
unsustainable in law. Consequently, present petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 15.01.1988 (Annexure P-7), is hereby quashed, with
a direction to the respondents to either retrieve the record from the then
Panchayat Secretary Shri Surjit Singh or reconstruct the record. If the
record is not available or not possible to reconstruct the said record, they
may collect other record pertaining to income and expenditure and only
thereafter the record be reconstructed. Explanation of the petitioner be
sought and thereafter fresh assessment order be passed in accordance with
law. Let this entire exercise be undertaken within a period of four months
from today.
09.09.2008 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE
Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO
