The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strict adherence to the principles of natural justice and the burden of proof in disqualifying elected representatives.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. By consent it was heard finally, and the Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner and respondent No.1 were elected members of the Village Panchayat, Tajnapur. Respondent No.1 had applied under Sections 14(1)(j-3) and 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (“Panchayats Act” for short) to declare the petitioner disqualified to be a member of the village panchayat as she had encroached upon the Government land. The Collector directed the Village Development Officer to submit the factual report. He had inspected the spot in Village Gram Panchayat, Nagalwadi and Village Panchayat, Tajnapur. On the same day, he inspected the houses of three Village Panchayat members of Tajnapur and submitted the report to the Collector on 25.01.2022.

3. Respondent No.1 complained that the petitioner resides with her father-in-law and husband jointly in the house constructed on encroached government land. Their house was numbered as property No.203. It was also the case that after the inspection was done, an illegal resolution was passed, transferring house No.203 in the name of Subhadra Navnath Khedkar. It is not valid unless the Chief Executive Officer approves such a resolution under Section 56(2) of the Panchayats Act. The Village Panchayat has no power to transfer the Government land. He also submitted that after the action was proposed against her, she segregated her name from the joint family ration card of her father-in-law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the spot inspection report of the VDO is vague. It is not in clear words that at the time of his inspection, the petitioner and husband were residing in that house. He did not give the notice before the inspection. It is unclear that local inquiry means (Sthanik inquiry). The application of the father-in-law of the petitioner dated 08.11.2020 for mutation in Namuna-8 about house No.203 contends that his name was incorrectly recorded in Namuna-8. It is a property of Subhadrabai. It is a litigation created by the opponent. She is residing with her husband in house property No.137. To bolster his argument, he relied on the electric bill issued in the name of her father-in-law's house No.137. He also relied on the tax receipt of house No.137. He submits that she never resided in house No.203. She was living with her family in house No.137, which was constructed on a private plot. She is not the encroacher.

5. To bolster his argument that the principles of natural justice have not been followed, he relied on the case of Subhash Krushnarao Khartadkar Vs. Divisional Commissioner; 2022 DGLS (Bom.) 2894. Further, he relied on the case of Savita w/o Premdas Jadhav Vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division and others in Writ Petition No.390 of 2022, dated 22.02.2023, argued that the ratio of the case of Janabai (supra) would not straightway apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. She was never the beneficiary of the said house No.203. Her case is very specific that the father-in-law had applied to the Village Panchayat submitting that his name was incorrectly recorded in Form No.8 for house No.203. It was the property of Subhadrabai. He would submit that there was no cogent and reliable material before the authorities to believe that she had encroached upon the Government land and acquired the disqualification. He prayed to allow the writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent and learned AGP would submit that after complaining about her, she had created a document to show that she was not residing in house No.203. She had no reason to segregate immediately from her father-in-law. House No.203 was constructed on Gut No.14 of the Government. They also referred to various papers in support of their contentions. Their main contention was that house property No.203 was hastily transferred from the name of the father-in-law of the petitioner to one Subhadra. Subhadra had also filed a separate applicatio