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. A show case 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 the 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(3) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 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 the 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 on 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.
(3.) 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 to 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.;