JUDGMENT
S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Charge No.1 against the petitioner was that he sold the land comprised in Khasra No. 1345 of 1797 which is described in the revenue record as gair mumkin pond without the permission of the Government through a general house meeting dated 25.12.1995 in open auction, whereas he had no right to do so without the permission of the Government. Other two charges levelled against the petitioner have not been proved, therefore, they need not to be discussed.
3. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.8.1999 to explain his position. On 1.9.1999 the petitioner sent a detailed reply to show cause notice. On 16.12.1999, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer-Respondent No.4 assessed a loss in the sum of Rs.2,71,49,774.74 to have been caused by the petitioner to the Panchayat exercising the powers under Section 216(2) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act’1). On 5.4.2000 the D.D.P.O. accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 216(3) of the Act. The matter was remanded back to the B.D.P.O. It was observed that B.D.P.O. did not give a proper opportunity to the appellant to produce his defence. The B.D.P.O. had also included the market value of the land which is owned by the Panchayat, which was held to be clearly illegal. On remand after verification of the facts, the B.D.P.O. has passed an order on 27.4.2000 again declaring that the petitioner had caused a loss of Rs.2,71,49,774.74 to the village Panchayat. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the D.D.P.O. On 8.6.2000, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the D.D.P.O. was dismissed. The petitioner filed revision No.145 of 2000 under Section 216(5) of the Act, which was dismissed by the Special Secretary to Govt. of Punjab Rural Development and Panchayat, on 28.8.2001.
4. Mr. M.L. Saggar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the amount of compensation has been fixed by the B.D.P.O. arbitrarily and whimsically. He has not followed any known criteria for fixing land value. He has submitted that, in fact no guidelines are provided in the Act. It is submitted that in the absence of the guidelines, the B.D.P.O. ought (o have assessed the compensation on the basis of the criteria given under the Land Acquisition Act. He has further stated that the petitioner, in fact, has been victimised on the basis of the political rivalry. In fact, the petitioner was trying to save the interest of the Panchayat as there had been large scale encroachments on the said land. It was the agreement of the Panchayat that the land be sold through open auction. The petitioner does not stand to gain anything from the auction. He has further submitted that the petitioner was only trying to avoid any further criminal acts as earlier a member of local village committee had been murdered. This murder had been committed when the deceased member panchayat was trying to stop the illegal encroachment on the land.
5. We have perused the orders passed by the B.D.P.O. and the D.D.P. We have also perused the order passed by the Special Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat. It is to be noticed that all the aforesaid orders have been passed by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case.
We do not find any error, apparent on the face of the record. The impugned order Annexure P-10 would be liable to be quashed if it is based on 110 evidence or is found to be without jurisdiction. In our opinion, the orders have been passed by the authorities concerned by taking into consideration all the relevant facts of the case. The orders passed are also within the jurisdiction of B.D.P.O. and D.D.P.O. and the Special Secretary to Government of Punjab, Rural Development and Panchayat.
6. Learned counsel has further submitted that admittedly Charge No. 2 pertaining to the construction of shops without the permission of the Department and leasing out the same by the petitioner to his own persons after receiving handsome amount, has not been proved. No shop was let out to any person by the petitioner. Similarly, Charge No 3 pertaining to the sale of land to the Telephone Exchange on the portion of the shamilat land given to the Government High School, has also not been proved. The amount realised from the sale of the land was deposited in the account of the Gram Panchayat. In our opinion, these disputed questions of fact cannot be reopened in writ proceedings. Three separate authorities have found the case to have been proved against the petitioner. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, would not substitute its own findings for the findings of fact recorded by the department authorities.
7. In view of the above, we find not merit in this petition. Dismissed. No costs.