JUDGMENT

Arun R. Pedneker, J. - Heard Mr. Umakant B. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, learned AGP for the Respondent / State, Ms. Yogita Thorat, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3, Mr. A. B. Kadethankar, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.4, Mr. G. R. Ingole, learned Counsel for Respondent No.6.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties heard finally.

3. The Petitioners challenge the impugned order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad in file No.2022/GP/Appeal no.1/CR 14, whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent No.6, reversing the Judgment of the Collector disqualifying the Respondent No.6, under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') from holding the post of Sarpanch/Member of the village panchayat.

4. The elections were held in the year 2021 to the village panchayat Kapsi, Taluka - Loha, District - Nanded. In the said election Respondent NO.6 was elected as a Member of the village panchayat and subsequently elected as a Sarpanch of the village panchayat. In the nomination filed by Respondent No.6 she has stated her residence as house No.579. The said house is constructed in Gut No.32, which is admittedly a Government land. The Petitioner filed a dispute with Respondent No.2, thereby bringing to the notice of Respondent No.2 that Respondent No.6 is disqualified under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act for having encroached upon a Government property. The dispute bearing case No.2021 / G.B. / Desk-1 / GPN / appeal / CR-15, was registered and the Respondent No.2, directed the concerned Block Development Officer to visit the place of residence of Respondent No.6 and submit his factual report about the alleged encroachment.

5. The Block Development Officer made inquiry and submitted his report on 11.10.2021. After notice, the Respondent No.6 appeared in the matter before the Collector and contended that the substantial part of the village is on an encroached area and in the instant case it is the brother-in-law of Respondent No.6, who is an encroacher and the Respondent No.6 is tenant of her brother-in-law and that Respondent No.6 is not the encroacher of the property and she is merely a tenant on the property.

6. She also filed before the Collector evidence of the Rent Agreement with her brother-in-law. She also produced her Ration Card and the Ration Card of her brother-in-law, which is separately maintained depicting that they are separate families and not joint in nature.

7. Respondent No.6 further submits that her brother-in-law has also filed an affidavit before the the Collector stating that he is the owner of the concerned house and Respondent No.6 is a monthly tenant and a property lease agreement has been executed with Respondent No.6.

8. The Collector has analysed the evidence and held that Respondent No.6 is an encroacher on the Government property and, as such, disqualified Respondent No.6. Respondent No.6 filed an appeal before the Revisional Authority / Appellate Authority and the appellate authority by order dated 11.03.2022 reversed the Judgment passed by the Collector and held that Respondent No.6 is merely a tenant and she is not an encroacher on the Government property, as such, the objectors / original complainants have filed the present Writ Petition.

9. It is the contention of the petitioners that nomination form of Respondent No.6 shows that she resides in House No.579. Undisputedly, House No.579 is on an encroached property and that there have been various representations made to the State Government to legalize the said properties, however, till date, the Government has not taken any action on the representations and has not granted regularisation of the said lands to the encroachers. The lease agreement also indicates that Respondent No.6 stays in the encroached property.

10. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that, once