Suspension of Sarpanch – Validity of Demarcation Report – Petitioner suspended from the post of Sarpanch due to alleged encroachment on Panchayat land based on a demarcation report – Contested the correctness of the report and suspension order – Held, the Director is the competent authority to form an opinion on the validity of the demarcation report, which is central to proceedings for removal of the Sarpanch – Writ Court cannot decide the correctness of the report when proceedings are sub judice before the Director – Appeal dismissed, petitioner directed to file objections to the show cause notice before the Director [Paras 1-6].

Jurisdiction of Writ Court – Alternative Remedies – Emphasized that writ courts should refrain from adjudicating matters pending before competent authorities unless no alternative remedy is available – The Director’s power to accept or reject the demarcation report and the appellate remedy to the State Government under Section 20(6) of the 1994 Act reaffirmed – Upheld Single Judge’s decision to allow petitioner to file objections to the show cause notice [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Writ court's jurisdiction limited in matters with pending statutory remedies – Directed petitioner to pursue objections and appeal within statutory framework [Para 8].

Removal of Sarpanch – Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner – Petitioner challenged his removal from the post of Sarpanch by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 51(3)(b) and 51(3)(c) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Held, Section 51 enables the Director or Deputy Commissioner to order removal after an inquiry on specified grounds, while Section 176 deals with the determination of election validity by a judge – Both sections operate in their own fields and do not exclude each other – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 1-11].

Harmonious Construction – Overlapping Provisions – Court emphasized the necessity of harmonious construction when provisions overlap – Section 51 allows administrative removal post-inquiry, whereas Section 176 pertains to election disputes – Both provisions must be given effect concurrently without exclusion [Para 11].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioner’s removal upheld – Court supported the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to remove a Sarpanch on grounds of disqualification and other specified reasons under Section 51(3) [Para 16].

Impleading Necessary Parties – Application to Sell Minors' Property – Petitioners, maternal grandmother and uncles, sought permission to sell minors’ property, impleading only the General Public as respondent – Trial Court ordered impleading of natural father and grandparents – Held, natural father and grandparents are necessary parties for proper adjudication – Under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC, court has the power to add any party at any stage if deemed necessary for complete adjudication – Emphasized that the father's and grandparents' perspectives are crucial for deciding the petition under Section 8 of the 1956 Act – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-19].

Dominus Litus Principle – Not Applicable – Court clarified that the principle of dominus litus does not apply when the case is against the General Public – Any member of the public can oppose the application – Court’s power to add necessary parties under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC upheld [Paras 9-10].

Court’s Duty – Comprehensive Fact Gathering – Highlighted the court’s duty to gather all relevant facts, ensuring no prejudice to minors' interests – Section 31(4) of the 1890 Act supports including all knowledgeable parties before deciding such applications – Importance of knowing natural father’s and grandparents’ sides to avoid decisions against minors' advantage [Paras 11-15].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Trial Court's orders upheld – Directed that the inclusion of natural father and grandparents is essential for a fair and just decision on the application to sell minors' property [Paras 17-18].

Tribunal Procedure – Cross-Examination Requirement – Petitioner's appeal involved procedural deficiencies where the Tribunal recorded witness statements without cross-examination – Tribunal decided based on witness statements given in examination-in-chief without cross-examination – Court held that summary procedure under Section 8 of the 2007 Act should not cause prejudice – Procedure as per Order 18, Rule 4 CPC must be followed, ensuring cross-examination for fair justice – Appellate Tribunal's order to remand the case for fresh adjudication upheld [Paras 12-16].

Civil Procedure – Recording of Evidence – Court emphasized mandatory nature of cross-examination after examination-in-chief – Statements given without cross-examination carry no weight – Tribunal must follow due procedure to avoid prejudice to any party – Proper procedure ensures no party suffers prejudice and is given equal opportunities [Paras 10-14].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Court upheld the appellate authority's decision to remand the case to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication following proper procedures, including cross-examination of witnesses [Paras 17-18].

Promotion – Posting upon Promotion – Petitioner, promoted to the post of Elementary School Head Master, objected to his posting at a new school without an NCC unit – Claimed entitlement to continue at his current school with an NCC unit – Court held that service rules mandate petitioner’s liability to serve anywhere in Haryana – Guidelines for NCC postings do not confer enforceable rights – Petitioner's conduct and insistence on staying at the same school for 15 years reflect unacceptable intentions – Rejection of objections and representation upheld [Paras 1-19].

Service Rules vs. Guidelines – Priority of Service Rules – Court clarified service rules prevail over guidelines – Petitioner must comply with administrative decisions for postings upon promotion – Guidelines do not limit administrative discretion unless supported by enforceable statutory provisions [Paras 12-16].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No interference warranted with administrative decisions regarding petitioner’s posting – Petitioner directed to comply with the posting order to join Government Girls Middle School, Manethi, District Rewari [Para 20].

Live-in Relationship – Protection of Life and Liberty – Petitioners, a minor girl aged 14 years and 8 months, and a 20-year-old boy, sought protection from their families – Held, legitimacy of live-in relationships requires certain conditions – Court found petitioners' claim of live-in relationship unsupported due to minor status of petitioner No.2 – Directed SSP, Sirsa to ensure minor's custody restored to her parents after coordination with Rajasthan police [Paras 1-16].

Child Marriage and Legal Implications – Evaluation of Child Marriage Act – Emphasized need to eradicate child marriage – Referred Supreme Court suggestions for declaring child marriages void ab initio – Urged Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh administrations to consider legislative changes to combat child marriage [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Directed SSP, Sirsa to restore custody of minor to her parents with coordination from Rajasthan police [Para 16].

Property Rights – Ownership of Common Land – Petitioners challenged their suspension under Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Questioned divestment of ownership rights over land reserved for common purposes during consolidation – Held, Section 42A of the 1948 Act does not divest proprietors of ownership – Control and management vest in Gram Panchayat or State till land is usable for common purposes – Once land is not usable for common purposes, ownership revives and compensation for sale should be paid to proprietors – Suspension orders quashed as distribution of sale proceeds among proprietors is not a ground for suspension [Paras 1-5, 33-37].

Legal Precedents – Vesting of Proprietary Rights – Cited Supreme Court and Full Bench decisions confirming that ownership of common land remains with proprietary body unless used for common purposes – Differentiated between various types of common land and clarified that JumlaMushtarka Malkan land does not vest in Gram Panchayat [Paras 3, 5, 13-18].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Suspension orders of petitioners from their respective offices set aside – Emphasized need for appropriate compensation and upholding of proprietary rights – Directed no misappropriation found in decision to distribute sale proceeds to proprietors [Paras 37-38].

Parole – Denial of Parole – Petitioner convicted under Sections 120-B, 302, 34, 109, and 115 IPC – Denied parole based on past conduct where she absconded during emergency parole and was arrested with fake documents at Nepal border – District Magistrate's decision upheld due to risk of evading legal process and escaping the country – Previous misuse of parole considered significant [Paras 1-19].

Conduct and Risk Assessment – Parole Consideration – Court emphasized parole is a privilege, not a right – Conduct during previous parole critical in decision – Petitioner’s prior absconding and possession of fake documents indicative of flight risk – Parole denied to maintain integrity of judicial process and ensure public safety [Paras 9-16].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Parole request denied – High Court supported the decision of the District Magistrate, reinforcing that parole is contingent on good conduct and cannot be granted where there is a high risk of evasion and potential harm to public order [Para 19].

Regularization of Contract Employees – Appointment Legitimacy – Petitioners sought directions for regularization of services, claiming long-term engagement on contractual basis – Held, unclear whether appointments were made after inviting applications and selection among applicants – Reliance on judgments in Umadevi and Sheo Narain Nagar misplaced – Supreme Court in Umadevi emphasized against regularization without following due process unless specific conditions met – Petitioners not covered under exceptions as none completed 10 years of service by judgment date – Dismissed [Paras 1-11].

Supreme Court Precedents – Application of Umadevi and Sheo Narain Nagar – Court noted Umadevi's stance against regularization without competitive selection – Exceptions for employees on sanctioned posts for over 10 years not applicable to petitioners – Sheo Narain Nagar case involved different facts, where petitioner met Umadevi's exception criteria – Petitioners’ cases did not align with these precedents [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine – Emphasized need for proper selection process and compliance with constitutional requirements for regularization – Petitioners directed to apply through regular recruitment channels as per notification [Para 11].