DAYA CHAUDHARY,J. - (1.)Petitioner-Sonu has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgment/order dated 02.02.2019 passed in the Election Petition filed by him and to set aside the election of respondent No.4.
(2.)Briefly, the facts of the case, as made out in the present petition, are that the election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Village Bahadurgarh, District Jind was held on 10.01.2016. Petitioner as well as respondents No.4 to 12 contested said election and respondent No.4 (Sushil Kumar) was declared as elected. Said election was challenged by the petitioner by filing the Election Petition under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (here-in-after called as Rs. the Act, 1994) , whereby, respondent No.4 was declared as elected before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Safidon-cum-Election Tribunal, Safidon by raising certain grounds and said petition was dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2019, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 was in illegal and unauthorized possession of Shamlat land as per revenue record and was disqualified for contesting election. In the revenue record, the name of father of the petitioner was mentioned in column of Khana Kast of the Jamabandi for the year 2010-11. Respondent no.4 was in illegal and unauthorized possession over Shamlat/Panchayat land bearing No.71 measuring 10 Kanal 12 Marlas to the extent of 70/212 share corresponding to 3 Kanal 10 Marlas. Prior to him, his deceased father Bije Singh was in illegal and unauthorized possession of said land. As per provisions of Section 175 of the Act, 1994, no person can be Sarpanch or a Panch of a gram panchayat in case such person has been in illegal and unauthorized possession of land or other immovable property belonging to the Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parisad during the period of one year preceding the date of election. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that the respondent authorities, while filing written statement to the Election Petition, mentioned about illegal/unaurthorized possession over the panchayat land. Without taking into consideration the provisions of Section 175(n) of the Act, 1994, the Election Petition has been dismissed, whereas, respondent No.4 could have been declared disqualified only on this ground.