- (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the Gram Panchayat, Pehowa, Tehsil Gulha, District Kurukshetra, challenging the order dated December 7, 1973, Annexure 'C' passed by the Government by which the Panchayat has been superseded.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this controversy may briefly be stated as follows. An area of 3063 Kanals and 18 Marlas situate in the revenue estate of Pehowa was recorded as Banjar Qadim land for a large number of years. This area was leased out by the Collector of Karnal to the Karnal Co-operative Farmers Society, Pehowa, Karnal, under the Utilization of Lands Act, 1949, in the year 1951. Another such area of 681 Kanals 2 Marlas was leased out by the Collector, Karnal, to the Lyallpur Co-operative Joint Farming Society Ltd., Murtazapur, Karnal, in the same year. It is alleged that the Karnal Co-operative Farmers Society (hereinafter called the Society) invested a lot of money in bringing the land under cultivation, which was virtually in the shape of a jungle. The land allotted to the other Society was not taken into possession by it. On the other hand, one Dasondha Singh and 9 others got possession of this land and made it cultivable by breaking the jungle. It is farther averred that after the coming into force of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953, this land was mutated in the name of the Gram Panchayat as its owner. Later on, when this Act was repealed and the 1961 Act was brought on the statute book, this land, according to the petitioner-Panchayat ceased to belong to the Gram Panchayat because it did not fall within the definition of shamilat land as given in Section 2(g) of this Act. There were some disputes between the earlier Gram Panchayat and the lessees of land which had been decided in favour of the lessees. Elections to the new Gram Panchayat were held in July, 1971. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Thanesar, addressed a communication to the Gram Panchayat through its Secretary bringing to its notice that the members of the earlier Gram Panchayat had suffered collusive decrees and that the same should be got set aside by the present Gram Panchayat by taking appropriate proceedings. The action taken by the petitioner-Panchayat is apparent from the copy of resolution No. 3 passed by it on May 7, 1972, which reads as under : "Whatever decision the previous Panchayat has taken is correct according to Rules. The new Panchayat cannot review this matter. A copy of this resolution may be sent to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Thanesar." On November 24, 1972, respondent No. 1 served a charge-sheet upon the Gram Panchayat consisting of seven heads of charges and called upon it to show-cause why it should not be superseded. The first four charges related to the period when the earlier elected Gram Panchayat was holding office. Charges No. 5, 6 and 7 only related to the period when the newly elected Gram Panchayat was in office. These charges when summarised denote that when it was advised to the Gram Panchayat that the collusive decrees be got set aside, it passed resolutions on May 7, 1972, and decided that the Panchayat should not take any action to get the alleged collusive decrees set aside and make an attempt at retrieving the land belonging to the Panchayat. Sarvshri Amar Singh, Gurdial Singh, Kehar Chand and Inder Dass were present at this meeting and it is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Panchayat that Amar Singh and Gurdial Singh were themselves the members of the Karnal Co-operative Farmers Society, in whose favour the earlier alleged collusive decrees had been suffered by the ex-Panchayat. It was also alleged that the Panches who took part in these resolutions were members of this Society and so they served their own interests. The other item of charge was that the Gram Panchayat did not convene any meeting of the Gram Panchayat under Section 113 of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act), that no budget was presented, and that whatever the Gram Panchayat spent was illegal. The Gram Panchayat submitted a reply to these allegations and submitted that, it the Government ordered the Panchayat, it was ready to take steps for getting the collusive decrees set aside. It was also asserted that Kehar Chand and Inder Dass had no interest in the lessee Society. Regarding the non-presentation of the budget, it was submitted as follows :- "The Panchayat states that all important decisions of the Panchayat have been taken by all the members of the Gram Sabha and it was a technical drawback that they were not kept in the record. This fact can be verified by calling a meeting of the Gram Sabha Pehowa." The Government considered this reply and vide its order dated December 7, 1973, Annexure 'C' has superseded the Gram Panchayat.
(3.) In the return filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that Amar Singh, Raghbir Singh and Gurdial Singh, who have been elected as the Panches of the present Panchayat, were also Panches at the time when the old Panchayat suffered the conclusive decrees against it. Regarding Kehar Chand and Inder Dass, it has been stated that they are the group leaders of the Abadi Dera Bazigars, which is in wrongful possession of about six acres of Panchayat land. Regarding the disobedience of the instructions issued by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer in the matter of filing suits for getting the collusive decrees set aside, it has been urged that Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961, entitles the Gram Panchayat to sue or be sued in a Court of law. It has further been stated that the explanation of the Gram Panchayat was duly considered while taking the impugned action, which was legal.;