Concurrent findings of fact regarding lack of misconduct under Section 40 of Panchayat Raj Act preclude writ interference.

The petitioner, Rajan, filed an application under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, against Respondent No. 5 (Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bakma). He alleged that the Sarpanch misused her official position by illegally demolishing a boundary wall/fencing on his land (Khasra No. 11)

The Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) (Revenue) dismissed the application on 28.12.2017, finding no misconduct

Subsequent appeals to the Collector and a revision petition before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, were also dismissed, with the Commissioner’s final order dated 16.12.2025 affirming the subordinate authorities' findings

The petitioner challenged these concurrent orders via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether the demolition of the petitioner’s fencing by the Sarpanch constituted "misconduct" warranting removal under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Act

2. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, can re-appreciate concurrent findings of fact recorded by statutory authorities

Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, which governs the removal of office-bearers for misconduct or misuse of official position

The settled legal principle regarding the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution, which dictates that a High Court does not acts as an appellate authority and shall not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or suffer from patent illegality

The Court observed that the petitioner had already exhausted his statutory remedies through appeal and revision

It noted that the SDO, Collector, and Commissioner had concurrently found that no personal misconduct was established against Respondent No. 5. Instead, the authorities determined that any action taken was on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, not in an individual capacity of the Sarpanch

The Court reasoned that since these findings were essentially factual and based on the appreciation of evidence, there was no justification for judicial intervention

The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the lower authorities' orders were arbitrary or lacked material evidence

The High Court found no merit in the petition and affirmed the Commissioner’s order dated 16.12.2025. The writ petition was dismissed