Back
V.R.KINGAONKAR
RAMRAO CHUDAMAN PATIL – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
The locus of the complainant in this context appears to be the authority or entity responsible for the enforcement of property tax payments and the subsequent disqualification proceedings against the members of the village panchayat. Specifically, the complainant would be the village panchayat or the relevant government authority (such as the Additional Collector or the Divisional Commissioner) that initiated and conducted the enquiry into the eligibility of the panchayat members based on their failure to pay property taxes within the prescribed period (!) (!) .
2. Both these petitions are being disposed of together inasmuch as identical questions of law and facts are involved therein. All these petitioners were members of village panchayat. They have been declared as disqualified from membership under section 14(1)(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, on the ground that they failed to pay the property taxes due from them within the prescribed period. So, they were held as ineligible to remain in the office of the village panchayat as members.
3. The respondent No.5 Narendra raised dispute about eligibility of in all 8 members of the village panchayat, Hol. The Additional Collector, Dhule, duly enquired into the application of respondent No. 5 Narendra. Consequent upon verification of facts, it was noticed that the petitioners had committed defaults in payment of house property tax which was due from them, in spite the demand notices served on them, within the stipulated period. The petitioners were heard during the enquiry. They offered various explanations. Their contentions were considered by the Additional Collector. The
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
