The judgment established the legal principle that unauthorized occupation of land belonging to the Grampanchyat constitutes encroachment, leading to disqualification under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, and highlighted the procedural requirements for addressing such encroachments.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

2. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. The petitioner the original disputant who assailed the order of the Collector contending that respondent No. 1 be declared as disqualified to be a member of Grmpanchyat under Section 14 (1) (j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchyat Act, 1958, on the ground that her father-in-law had encroached upon the land belonging to the Grampanchyat.

3. Respondent No. 1 is the elected member of the Grampanchyat. Respondent No. 2 is Gramsevak and the respondent No. 3 is the Collector, whereas, respondent No. 4 is the Additional Commissioner, Nashik.

4. The learned Collector by the judgment and order dated 21.06.2022, held respondent No. 1 as disqualified to be a member of Grampanchyat. However, the learned Additional Commissioner, in Grampanchyat Appeal No. 91 of 2022 set aside the order passed by the learned Collector by allowing the appeal and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. The facts in short are that respondent No. 1 came to be elected as a member of the Grampanchyat in the election held on 15.01.2021. The petitioner who is a voter from the said village filed a dispute. It is the main contention of the petitioner that the father-in-law of respondent No. 1 was occupying the land of the Grmpanchyat since 1991. After his death till 1997, the same is occupied by the husband of the respondent No. 1. The said occupation is illegal and without any authority of law and therefore, respondent No. 1 has incurred disqualification.

6. The learned Collector considered that the land in question i.e. the property No. 666 is shown to be of the Grampanchyat. The husband of respondent No. 1 is shown to be occupant, having constructed building with 5 shops in it. The defence of respondent No. 1 was that the said land was given by the Grampanchyat to her father-in-law namely Bhagwant Dagadu Zende by passing a resolution in monthly meeting dated 17.10.1992, bearing resolution No. 4. The said land as per the resolution was given for raising a cattle shed. It was resolved that the name of deceased Bhagwant be entered into the record. The learned Collector has observed that this defence is not acceptable. The said land was given to the deceased Bhagwant without any authority of law. From the resolution, it was observed that in fact the Gramsevak has raised the objection stating that the Grampanchyat has no authority to transfer the land, in such manner and still the land was given to the deceased Bhagwant, which is now in occupation of the husband of respondent No. 1.

7. The learned Commissioner however, held that the land was given in possession of deceased Bhagwant by passing a resolution and the name of the husband of respondent No. 1 is shown as occupant, therefore, it cannot be said to be an encroachment. Further, it is held that there is nothing on record to show that, at any point of time, notice was issued to the occupant. The Additional Commissioner, thus, allowed the appeal.

8. The learned Advocate for the petitioner at the outset submits that assuming that the Grampanchyat had given the land to the father-in-law of respondent No. 1, but the same is not recognized by law in view of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Village Panchyat Act. Section 55 of the Act reads as under :

“55. Competency of panchayat to lease, sale or transfer property.- Every panchayat shall be competent to lease, sell or otherwise transfer movable or immovable property which may become [vested in (otherwise than under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 51)] or be acquired by it and to contract and do all other things necessary for the purpose of this Act: Provided that no lease of immovable property other than property referred to in sub-section (1) of section 56 for a term exceeding three years, and no sale or other transfer of any such property shall be valid unless such lease, sale or other transfer has been made with the previo