AJAI LAMBA,J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to order dated 17.5.2010 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Punjab, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, vide which the revision petition filed by respondent No.4-Charanjit Kaur has been allowed.
(2.) RESPONDENT No.4 was elected as Sarpanch of Village Dhangrali, Block Morinda, District Ropar. Certain allegations were made against respondent No.4 on the ground that she did not pursue the cases against persons in unauthorised possession of panchayat land and, therefore, had misconducted herself. The defence taken by respondent No.4 is to the effect that after her election, a request was made to the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ropar, for issuance of warrants of possession, for clearance of unauthorised possession. Thereafter, warrants of possession were taken. Before the warrants of possession could be executed, civil court passed orders of stay and, therefore, no action could be taken by the Gram Panchayat. Thus, order dated 11.3.2010 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, directing removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch, is against facts. The Financial Commissioner has dealt with the issue in the following manner:- "After hearing arguments of both the parties, it has been concluded that the allegations with respect to removal of illegal encroachments against the Sarpanch pertain to the period before that and the decision in favour of the Gram Panchayat is also prior to that. After her election as Sarpanch, the appellant had requested the District Development and Panchayats Officer, Ropar for issuance of warrants of possession for clearance of unauthorised possessions from the encroachers when proceedings were initiated after obtaining warrants of possession, order of stay was obtained by the occupants from the civil court due to which eviction proceedings had to be kept in abeyance and by filing an application for vacation of stay has continued the proceedings. In this way, the allegation regarding non-removal of illegal encroachments is not proved in any manner. Therefore, dismissal of the appellant from the office is not valid. As such, setting aside the order of dismissal, the appeal is accepted. Order pronounced."
(3.) WHILE learned counsel for the petitioner (complainant) contends that there was no stay, as would be evident from the documents placed on record with the petition, learned counsel for respondent No.4 contends that there was a stay and one such order has been placed on record as Annexure R-4/7.;