KURIAN JOSEPH, R.BANUMATHI
Sagar Pandurang Dhundare – Appellant
Versus
Keshav Aaba Patil – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Kurian, J. The crucial question to be decided is whether a family member of the original encroacher can be disqualified, under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short "the Act"). The enabling provision, as introduced by an amendment in 2006, reads as follows:
"14.Disqualifications.- (1) No person shall be a member of a Panchayat, or continue as such, who-
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
(j-3) has encroached upon the Government land or public property; or ..."
2. On the undisputed facts of these cases, there is no allegation that the appellants are encroachers themselves, in the sense that they themselves first encroached upon the Government property and they continue to occupy the same. The allegation is that their father/grandfather are encroachers and they are the beneficiaries of the encroachment. According to the State and the contesting respondent, the beneficiary of an encroachment is also an encroacher.
3. The question that arises before us has been dealt with by several judgments of the High Court of Bombay. However there appears to be a conflict between the various decisions of the High Court. In Ganesh Arun Chavan v. State of Maharashtra and others 2013 (2) MhLJ
Ganesh Arun Chavan v. State of Maharashtra
Kanchan Shivaji Atigre v. Mahadev Baban Ranjagane
Devidas s/o Matiramji Surwade v. Additional Commissioner, Amravati
Parvatabai @ Shobha d/o Kisan Kande v. Additional Commissioner, Nagpur
Sandip Ganpatrao Bhadade v. Additional Commissioner, Amravati
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.