The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of a purposive interpretation of the term 'person' and the conflict of duty and interest arising from encroachment over government land or public property.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dated 23 June 2022 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune in Appeal No.VP/Pune-20/2021 under Section 16(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (the Act, 1959), whereby the appeal preferred by the Respondent No.1 herein against the judgment and order dated 1 December 2021 in Dispute Application No.29 of 2021 passed by the District Collector, Pune, disqualifying the Respondent No.1 under Section 14(1) (j-3) of the Act, came to be allowed by setting aside the said order.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this Appeal can be stated as under :

2.1 The Petitioner is the applicant in Dispute Application No.29 of 2021. In the month of January 2021, general elections to Village Panchayats including Village Pimple – Jagtap, Tal. Shirur, Dist. Pune, were held. Respondent No.1 was elected as a member of Panchayat from Ward No.2.

2.2 The Petitioner being the resident of Village Pimple-Jagtap and also a voter at the said election, preferred Dispute Application No.29 of 2021 before the District Collector, Pune – Respondent No.2, alleging that the Respondent No.1 had incurred disqualification to be a member of the Village Panchayat under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act, as the father of the Petitioner had committed encroachment over the gairan land bearing Gat No.420 Hissa No.1 and erected an unauthorized construction admeasuring 32 x 29 ft. The Respondent No.1 was in the occupation and enjoyment of the encroached portion of the government land.

2.3 Respondent No.1 resisted the application. Respondent No.1, inter alia, contended that the Respondent No.1 did not hold any property in Village Pimple - Jagtap. Nor committed any encroachment over any government land/public property. Respondent No.1 has been residing separately from his father Arun Bendbhar since the year 2015. Reliance was sought to be placed on a ration card in the name of Arun Bendbhar, which shows that the Respondent No.1 is not a member of the former’s family, and the fact that the Respondent No.1 had obtained an independent gas connection.

2.4 An effort was also made to question the factum of encroachment, on the ground that the gairan land came to be allotted to the father of Respondent No.1 for poultry farming pursuant to a Resolution in the meeting of the Village Panchayat dated 28 December 1989 as the father of the Respondent No.1 was then unemployed. Questioning the motive of the Petitioner to file Dispute Application, the Respondent No.1 had prayed for the rejection thereof.

2.5 The District Collector, Pune, after appraisal of the rival contentions, the report submitted by the Circle Officer dated 5 June 2021, post physical inspection, and the copy of the assessment list in respect of property No.1241, arrived at a conclusion that the father of Respondent No.1 had committed an encroachment over the gairan land bearing Gat No.420/1. Applying the ratio in the case of Janabai Vs. Additional Commissioner and Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 196 the District Collector returned a finding that the Respondent No.1 incurred disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act.

2.6 Being aggrieved, the Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal under Section 16(2) of the Act, 1959. By the impugned order dated 23 June 2022, the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune was persuaded to allow the Appeal holding that it could not be established beyond doubt that the Respondent No.1 was residing together with his father and continued to occupy the encroached property. The facts that on 16 November 2020, the name of the Respondent No.1 came to be deleted from the ration card in the name of Arun Bendbhar. Respondent No.1 had obtained gas connection 4 to 5 years prior to the elections; address of Respondent No.1 on the Aadhar Card No.8060 8583 7437 was different than the allegedly encroached propert