Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.@mdashThe petitioner was a member of the Village Panchayat. Vide order dated April 20, 1999, the Deputy Director (exercising the powers of the Director Panchayats), suspended her on the ground that her husband Mewa Singh is in illegal occupation of the Shamlat land measuring 2 Bighas 1 Biswa. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Government. It has been dismissed vide order dated September 1, 1999, passed by the Special Secretary to the Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats. Copies of the two orders have been placed on record of the writ petition, which are Annexures P5 and P7 respectively. The petitioner challenges these orders on a two fold basis. Firstly, it has been contended that neither she, nor her husband are in illegal occupation of any part of the Shamlat Deh. In fact, the land in question was in possession of Chatru, her father-in-law. This land had been given to him in exchange for the land, which was taken for the purpose of constructing the road. Secondly, it has been submitted that even if it is assumed that the petitioner''s husband is in illegal occupation of any land, the Panchayat can take appropriate steps to evict him. The petitioner has done nothing, on account of which she may be held guilty of any dereliction of duty and be suspended.
2. On the other hand, Mr. Berry submits that a relation of a Panchayat member is not even entitled to bid at an auction. Therefore, the possession of even the father-in-law is illegal and that the action taken against the petitioner is legal and valid.
3. Admittedly, no proceedings have been initiated for any unauthorised occupation of land either against the petitioner''s husband or her father-in- taw. Still further, the two documents placed on record, viz. the report dated March 15,1999 submitted by the Patwari and the copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1997-98 show that the land is in possession of Chatru and not the petitioner or her husband Mewa Singh. Thus, the basis on which the impugned order has been passed is non-existent. Still further, it appears that even Chatru has been recorded as a tenant-at-will. Nothing has been produced to show that the possession is unauthorised. Even a reply has not been filed.
4. Taking all these facts cumulatively into consideration, we find that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. These are consequently set aside. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.
5 Petition allowed.
