Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Singh vs Dipinder Singh on 13 February, 2012
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
COCP No.1678 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 13.02.2012
****
Gurmeet Singh . . . . Petitioner
vs.
Dipinder Singh, DC, Hoshiapur & Anr. . . . . Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
****
Present: Mr. Hardeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. GS Cheema, Sr.DAG Punjab
****
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
(1). This contempt petition has been filed inter alia alleging that despite an order of ejectment passed against Gurvinder Singh, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, who is allegedly in unauthorized possession of the village pond, the said order is not being executed by the authorities in connivance with the Sarpanch. It does appear from some of the orders dated January 27, 2009 passed in CWP No.4581 of 2008 (Annexure P1) and the order dated May 9, 2011 passed CWP No.16420 of 2009 that the ejectment order was passed but has not been executed as the Sarpanch himself is the encroacher. The Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat has not been unfortunately impleaded as a party respondent in these contempt proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector Patiala and the DDPO, Patiala are accordingly directed to hold a fact-
COCP no.1678 of 2011.doc -2- finding enquiry and if it is found that the ejectment order is lying unexecuted or the possession of Gram Panchayat land has not been restored to it due to alleged connivance of the Sarpanch, the prescribed authority shall take suitable disciplinary action against the person(s) responsible.
(2). If the ejectment order is still operative, the BDPO of the area concerned is directed to represent the Gram Panchayat and seek execution of the said order so that the Panchayat is not deprived of its property due to extraneous inaction of the Sarpanch. The necessary steps shall be taken by the above-named three officers of the District Administration within a period of three months failing which these contempt proceedings shall be revived. (3). These directions are issued for the reason that despite opportunity no reply has been filed by the respondents so far.
(4). The contempt petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
(5). Rules discharged. Dasti.
13.02.2012 (SURYA KANT)
vishal shonkar
Judge