SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 1580

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Arun R. Pedneker, J.
Shaikh Jadanbee Shaikh Rais - Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector, Collector Office, Jalna - Respondents
Writ Petition No.10678 Of 2022
Decided On : 13-12-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.V. Gore
For the Respondents: Mr. K. B. Jadhavar.

The necessity of spot inspection in the presence of the affected party is crucial in cases involving alleged encroachment, as it influences the validity of the inspection report.

Headnote:

Encroachment - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Section 14(1)(j-3), 16 - [14(1)(j-3), 16] - The court discussed the petitioner's request for re-inspection and fresh report on encroachment, citing the judgment of Lalita Dilip Khandalkar, which emphasized the necessity of spot inspection in the presence of the affected party. The court found that the report indicated the petitioner's presence during the spot inspection, and therefore, rejected the petitioner's contention for re-inspection at that stage.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an elected member of a village panchayat, faced disqualification due to alleged encroachment over government land. The petitioner requested re-inspection and a fresh report, which was rejected by the Collector, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the report indicated the petitioner's presence during the spot inspection, and therefore, rejected the petitioner's contention for re-inspection at that stage.

Issues: The main issue revolved around the petitioner's request for re-inspection and fresh report on encroachment, and the Collector's rejection of the same.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of spot inspection in the presence of the affected party, as highlighted in the judgment of Lalita Dilip Khandalkar, and found that the report indicated the petitioner's presence during the spot inspection.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of by the court.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner is an elected member of village panchayat Garkheda-Jomal and she became Sarpanch of the said panchayat in February-2021.

2. Respondent No.5 filed a compliant before the learned Collector, Jalna under Section 14(1) (j-3) and 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 seeking a disqualification on the ground that the petitioner has made encroachment over the government land. It has been noted in the complaint that the petitioner has constructed a house at gaothan land admeasuring 15 X 20 feet by committing encroachment. It is the case of the petitioner that on 06.09.2022 the petitioner appeared before the Collector and on that day it was found that the Block Development Officer/Respondent no.3 had submitted an inquiry report in the complaint. The petitioner then received copy of the inquiry report dated 09.07.2021 and in the said inquiry report spot inspection/panchanama was not submitted. It is the case of the petitioner that the alleged spot inspection was done behind the back of the petitioner and in absence of the petitioner. However, it is stated in the said report that on 06.07.2021 around 03:30 pm measurement was done in respect of house of the petitioner and in the said report it is also stated that there is encroachment on a public road.

3. The petitioner, thereafter, on 20.09.2022 submitted the application before the Collector and requested for re-inquiry/spot inspection as the same was not drawn in her presence and prayed for fresh spot inspection in presence of revenue officers having technical knowledge. The petitioner, thereafter, on 04.10.2022, submitted another application and prayed for fresh inquiry report and time to file written statement. On 04.10.2022, the Collector, Jalna passed interim order on Roznama, thereby, rejecting the request of the petitioner for inquiry on the ground that the request is not legal and then directed the petitioner to submit his written statement. The petitioner has challenged the interim order passed by the Collector on the Roznama rejecting her request for re-inspection by filing the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Gore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the inquiry is behind the back of the petitioner and that the report submitted by Block Development Officer would adversely affect the petitioner in her disqualification case before the Collector, the Collector ought to have accepted the request of the petitioner for re-inspection and fresh report on encroachment. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench directing re-inspection of encroached portion by giving notice to the petitioner therein, in case of Lalita Dilip Khandalkar Vs. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and others, 2019 (6) All M. R. 261, at para 12 has observed as under:

    “12. In any case, there is nothing on record to show that the spot inspection and measurement was carried out in the presence of either the respondent no.2 or more particularly the petitioner, who was likely to be adversely affected by the findings in such report.”

5. Relying upon the judgment of Lalita Dilip Khandalkar (supra), the learned counsel submits that the spot inspection has to be necessarily carried out in presence of the petitioner and non compliance of the same would vitiate the inspection report and, therefore, in the interest of justice prayed for a fresh inquiry report in presence of the petitioner.

6. Per contra, Mr. Jadhavar, the learned AGP on perusal of the report pointed out that the report indicates that report dated 09.07.2021 has been done in presence of the petitioner and her prayer is misconceived.

7. Having considered the rival submissions and the observations in the report as under:-

    ^^lnj rdzkjhP;k vuq”kaxkus eh JhŒ ftŒ ,lŒ ik[kjs foLrkj vf/kdkjh ¼ia½ iapk;r lferh Hkksdjnu o laca/khr xzkelsod rdzkjnkj ;kaP;klg fnukad 06@07@2021 osy 03%30 oktrk tk;eksD;koj tkÅu rdzkjnkj ;kauh

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top