झूठा शपथपत्र और सरकारी भूमि अतिक्रमण: हाईकोर्ट ने सरपंच का चुनाव रद्द किया

यदि किसी सरपंच या पंच द्वारा सरकारी भूमि पर अतिक्रमण किया गया है, और उसके द्वारा चुनाव के घोषणा पत्र में झूठा शपथपत्र दिया गया है तो उसका चुनाव इसी आधार पर निरस्त किया जा सकता है और वह पंचायत का पदाधिकारी होने के लिए अयोग्य है।

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL

Date of decision:03/04/25

WRIT PETITION No. 3326 of 2025

RAVENDRA PRATAP SINGH

V.

BADRI PRASAD VISHWAKARMA AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri K.P. Singh Parihar, Advocate for petitioner.

Held:

मध्य प्रदेश पंचायत राज एवं ग्राम स्वराज अधिनियम, 1993 की धारा 36(1) (cc) में प्रावधान है कि यदि किसी व्यक्ति ने पंचायत या सरकार की किसी भूमि या भवन पर अतिक्रमण किया है, तो वह पंचायत का पदाधिकारी होने के लिए अयोग्य है।

मध्य प्रदेश पंचायत निर्वाचन नियम, 1995 का नियम 31-A अभ्यर्थी की व्यक्तिगत जानकारी से संबंधित है और नियम 31-A(1) में यह प्रावधान है कि पंच पद के लिए प्रत्येक अभ्यर्थी को नामांकन पत्र के साथ राज्य निर्वाचन आयोग द्वारा निर्धारित प्रारूप में घोषणा प्रस्तुत करनी होगी,

जिसमें उसकी शैक्षणिक योग्यता,

लंबित/निर्णीत आपराधिक मामले,

उसकी और उसके पति/पत्नी तथा आश्रितों की संपत्ति और देनदारियों के बारे में जानकारी,

इस बारे में जानकारी कि क्या वह सरकारी भूमि पर अतिक्रमणकारी है,

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य विद्युत बोर्ड या उसकी उत्तराधिकारी कंपनियों को देय कोई बकाया राशि,

किसी प्राथमिक कृषि साख सहकारी समिति के कालातीत ऋण की कोई बकाया राशि और

उसके आवासीय परिसर में फ्लश शौचालय के अस्तित्व के बारे में जानकारी शामिल होगी।

उपरोक्त मामले में प्रत्यर्थी सरपंच द्वारा गलत शपथपत्र दिया गया था कि उसके द्वारा सरकारी भूमि पर कोई अतिक्रमण नहीं किया गया है।

उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा चुनाव याचिका स्वीकार कर प्रत्यर्थी को पंचायत का पदाधिकारी होने के लिए अयोग्य मानते हुए सरपंच का चुनाव रद्द किया गया।

ORDER

Petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that the respondent No. 9 Sub Divisional Officer, Maihar has passed an order on 23.12.2024 incorrectly shielding the private respondent No.1 Badri Prasad Vishwakarma in the matter of election to the post of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Badera of Janpad Panchat Maihar, District Maihar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 36 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 deals with disqualification for being office bearer of the Panchayat.

Section 36(1) (cc) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 provides that one who has encroached upon any land or buildings of the Panchayat and Government, is disqualified for being office bearer of the Panchayat.

Rule 31-A of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 deals with the personal information of the candidate and Rule 31-A(1) provides that every candidate for the post of Panch shall submit a declaration in a form as prescribed by the State Election Commission alongwith nomination paper which shall include information about his educational qualification, criminal cases pending/decided, his/her assets and liabilities and that of his/her spouse and dependents, information about whether he/she is an encroacher on Government Land, any dues payable to the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board or its successor companies any dues of time barred loan of any primary agriculture credit cooperative society and about existence of flush latrine in his/her residential premises.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Paragraph No.11 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner as Annexure P/1 makes a mention of the fact that there is no encroachment made by him.

The aforesaid affidavit was sworn on 1.6.2022. Vide Annexure P/4 dated 27.1.2018, the petitioner was found to be an encroacher on part of 102.224 Hectare of Government Land measuring 200 X 200 Square Feet of Survey No.512/2/K/1.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the notice of the aforesaid proceedings was never served on the private respondent.

The original note sheet produced by learned Government Advocate for the State reveals that on 19.1.2018, the Naib Tahsildar, Tahsil Badera Bhadanpur, District Maihar has clearly recorded a finding that despite service of notice, the non-applicant is not present and, therefore, he was proceeded ex-parte.

Vide order Annexure P/5 dated 27.9.2024, the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 came to be rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), District Maihar in Case No.0001/Appeal/23-24.

Thus, it is evident that there is violation of the provisions as contained in Section 31(1)(cc) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and Rule 31-A of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 and, therefore, the election of the private respondent being dehors the provisions could not have been sustained by the Sub Divisional Officer, Maihar in Election Petition No.0004/C-144/2022-23 decided on 23.12.2024.

The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 23.12.2024 is contrary to the statutory provisions as mentioned above.

The election petition deserves to and is hereby allowed. The election of the private respondent No.1 Badri Prasad Vishwakarma is set aside.

The consequences shall follow.

This writ petition is allowed and disposed of.