A.B. Chaudhari, J.

Heard. ADMIT. Taken up for final hearing and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17/07/2012 in Writ Petition No. 2078/2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

3. In support of the appeal, Mr. P.B. Patil, the learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the Plot bearing No.168 was admittedly not encroached by the appellant but by his father way back in the year 1966. A house was constructed on Plot No.168 by the father of appellant and after the death of his father, the appellant is residing in the said house. According to Mr. Patil, the disqualification provided by Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 is inapplicable to the appellant and the appellant could not have been removed for the encroachment made by his father. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge as well as the order of the Additional Commissioner.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. On the facts described by the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the State L