J.L. Gupta, J. - (1.) The second petitioner filed a complaint against respondent No. 4, alleging that he had cut and sold 5 or 6 eucalyptus trees at a price of Rs. 10,000/ -. On receipt of this complaint, the fourth respondent, who was working as Sarpanch of the village Panchayat, was placed under suspension. However, after inquiring into the complaint, the competent authority vide its order dated September 11, 2001 held that the land vests in the Wakf Board. The mutation had been sanctioned in favour of the Board on September 19, 1994. Respondent Sita Ram was elected as Sarpanch in 1998. There was no evidence "regarding the sale of the trees", Thus, the charge of cutting and selling trees from the Panchayat land was not proved. Resultantly, respondent No. 4 was reinstated. Aggrieved by the order, the second petitioner as well as the Panchayat filed an appeal before the Special Secretary, It was dismissed with the observation that "the complainant has got no right to prefer the appeal against the order of reinstatement under the provisions of the Act." Copies of the orders passed by the Deputy Director (exercising the power of the Director, Panchayats) and the Special Secretary to the Government have been produced on record as Annexures P -9 and P -10.
(2.) The petitioners allege that the Appellate Authority had erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of locus -standi. The trees vested in the Panchayat. Thus, they pray that the orders be quashed.
(3.) The case was posted for hearing before this Bench on November 21, 2001. It was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the petitioners to enable him to produce evidence to show that even though the land had been transferred in favour of the Wakf Board, the trees still vested in the Panchayat. In pursuance to this order, the petitioners have produced a copy of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 297 of 1994.;