The duty of the Collector to conduct a proper inquiry and decide on disqualification within a specified time frame, following the principles of natural justice and fair play.

JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 22nd September 2018 passed by the District Collector, Osmanabad and 21st January, 2019 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, whereby, the petitioner has been disqualified for the post of Sarpanch of Ter, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad under section 14(1) (j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (For short, “the Act”).

3. The brief facts of the petition are as under :-

The petitioner was duly elected Sarpanch of village Ter Taluka and District Osmanabad. The complaint was filed against the petitioner by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 stating that the petitioner has encroached in government gairan land 1273 and put up irregular construction on it. After receiving complaint, the Collector called reports from the concerned authority. Considering reports on record and submissions of the petitioner and respondent nos.6 and 7, the Collector by impugned order dated 22.09.2018 disqualified the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. The petitioner challenged the order of the Collector by way of appeal before Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The Additional Commissioner rejected the appeal of the petitioner by order dated 21.01.2019. The said orders are under challenge .

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Miss. Talekar submits that, the complaint was initially filed on the ground that there is near about 700 sq. ft. construction (i.e. 64 sq. mtr.) on Government Gairan land in Gut No. 1273. However, in enquiry, it was clarified that the land of the petitioner is not in Gut No. 1273, rather it was converted in city survey being C.T.S. No. 1148, and the predecessor in title of the petitioner, was allotted the land by a Government order, way back in the year 1970. The learned counsel submits that no doubt that out of 97 Sq. mtr., land in question, there is some construction to the extent of 60-65 sq. mtr. however, it is neither in government gairan land at Gut no.1273 as seen from the boundaries of the land given by the complainant as well as the measurement sheet and map by the land records office. Nor, is the land of the petitioner adjacent to the land at Gut no.1273. Without calling for a report from the land records office, the respondents, acting under the political pressure, have undertaken a lopsided enquiry and relying on the measurements by the revenue officers, without any expertise, the petitioner is disqualified.

5. The learned counsel submits that the District Collector under Section 16(2) is merely supposed to verify, if any vacancy arises owing to disqualification suffered under Section 14, meaning thereby there is no jurisdiction with the Collector for adjudicating whether the disqualification is actually incurred. The learned counsel submits that only on a settled question of disqualification, the Collector is to take further steps under section 16. In a question of disqualification under section 14(1)(j-3), it was expected for the Collector to take action only in case there was a clear order as to the title of the petitioner by a Civil Court, after proper adjudication. There being an allotment order in favour of the predecessor in title of the petitioner and clear record available with the Superintendent of Land Records office, this is not a case where the Collector could have undertaken action under section 16. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in question of disqualification under section 14(1)(j-3), it was expected for the Collector to take action only in case, there was a clear order as to the title of the petitioner by a civil court, after proper adjudication.

6. The learned counsel submits that in similar cases where other members of the same Gram Panchayat were sought to be disqualified on this count, the matter was referred to the Land Records authorities and their reports were sought, since m