IMPORTANT POINT
The principles of natural justice must be observed in inquiries regarding disqualification of elected members under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, including the necessity for proper notice and competent conduct of inspections.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By the present Writ Petitions, the petitioners are challenging the orders dtd. 28/3/2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 - Collector, Nanded thereby disqualified the petitioners as member of the Village Panchayat under Sec. 14 (1) (j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act.

3. All these petitions are taken up together as the common issue is involved in all these matters. The common spot panchanama report is prepared in all these matters and the same is conducted in absence of the petitioners and without notices to the petitioners.

4. The elections to the village panchayat were held in the month of January, 2021 and the results were declared on 18/1/2021. The petitioners contested the said elections and were elected as members of the village panchayat. Thereafter, complaint was filed under Sec. 14 (1) (j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act for seeking disqualification of the petitioners for having encroached upon the government land or public land. Sec. 14 (j) (3) provides for disqualification of an elected member of village panchayat, who has encroached upon the government land or public property. In pursuance of the complaint, the respondent no.2 - Collector, Nanded issued notices to all the the respondents. The respondent no.2 - Collector, Nanded, by its order dtd. 30/7/2021, had directed the respondent no.4 - The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Naigaon to hold an enquiry in the allegations made in the dispute and submit a report. In pursuance to the said order, common report was submitted by the respondent no.4 to the Collector against all the petitioners and in terms of the report of the respondent no.4, the petitioners were disqualified for having encroached upon the government land.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the spot inspection is without notice to the petitioners and has relied upon the judgment in the case of Lalita Dilip Khandalkar Vs. Additional Commissioner, Amravati & others reported in 2019(6) ALL MR 261 to contend that the spot inspection has to be in presence of the parties, at para nos.12 and 13 held 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.

13. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to take into consideration the said aspect. Although it appears that in the appeal filed before respondent No.1 - Additional Commissioner, the petitioner has not raised such a specific ground but since disqualification of a person who has been elected as Member of the Gram Panchayat is a serious matter and by an order the respondent No.2 - Additional Collector has set aside the election of such a person, it is necessary that proper opportunity is given to such a person to dispute material that may come on record in the process of enquiry into the allegations made by the complainant i.e. the respondent No.3. Considering the seriousness of the nature of order that the respondent No.2 - Additional Collector proposed to pass under Sec. 14 (1) (j-3) of the aforesaid Act, it was necessary that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to remain present during spot inspection and measurement to raise objections, if any, against such exercise.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 contends that no notice is required of spot inspection and has relied upon the judgment in the case of Rahul Raju Kulsange Vs. Additional Collector, Nagpur and others reported in 2022 (2) Mh.L.J. 555 wherein this Court has held that enquiry conducted by the Collector is summary in nature and cannot be converted into adversarial nature, this Court at para no.15 has held as under:

15. It is, thus, apparent, a plain reading of the language of Sec. 16 (2) and the proviso thereto, of the M.V.P. Act, would indicate that