SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 2164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Madhav J.Jamdar, J.
Dattatraya Krishnat Patil - Appellant
Versus
Additional Divisional Commissioner - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2521 of 2023
Decided On : 01-11-2023

Advocates appeared:
Rakesh Sharad Patil, Advocate, Ajay B.Chate, Advocate, P.P.Pujari, Advocate, Yuvraj Narvankar, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
A member of a Gram Panchayat can be disqualified for encroaching on government land under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, and such disqualification is valid if supported by credible evidence of encroachment.

Headnote:

ENCROACHMENT - DISQUALIFICATION FROM GRAM PANCHAYAT - MAHARASHTRA VILLAGE PANCHAYATS ACT, 1959, SECTIONS 14(1)(j-3), 16(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, particularly Sections 14(1)(j-3) and 16(2), which disqualify individuals from being members of the Panchayat if they have encroached upon government land. The court interpreted these provisions to affirm that the disqualification of Respondent No.3 was valid due to established encroachments on State Highway No.189, as evidenced by survey reports and admissions made during proceedings. The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to statutory requirements in determining eligibility for Panchayat membership.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioners, residents of Haldi village, challenged the Additional Divisional Commissioner's order that set aside the Collector's disqualification of Respondent No.3 from the Gram Panchayat for encroaching on government land. The Collector had found that Respondent No.3's family had encroached upon State Highway No.189, leading to her disqualification under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Collector's order disqualifying Respondent No.3 was justified based on evidence of encroachment, including survey maps and admissions made during hearings. The Additional Divisional Commissioner's order was deemed perverse and contrary to the established facts.

Issues: Whether Respondent No.3 was disqualified from the Gram Panchayat due to encroachment on government land as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, specifically Section 14(1)(j-3), clearly disqualify any member who has encroached upon government land. The evidence presented, including survey reports and admissions, supported the Collector's decision to disqualify Respondent No.3.

Final Decision: The court quashed the Additional Divisional Commissioner's order and restored the Collector's disqualification of Respondent No.3, allowing the Writ Petition with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. Chate, learned Additional GP along with Mr. Pujari, learned AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5-State and Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3.

2. By way of this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners who are the residents of village Haldi, Taluka-Karveer, District-Kolhapur and therefore, voters in the election of Respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat Haldi, are challenging the Order dtd. 9/2/2023, passed by the Respondent No.1-Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune in Appeal No.14 of 2022 ("impugned Order"). By the said impugned order, the Appeal filed by the Respondent No.3 has been partly allowed by setting aside the Order dtd. 24/6/2022 passed by the Collector, Kolhapur in Dispute Application No.16 of 2021 and the matter has been remanded back. The operative part of the said impugned order dtd. 9/2/2023 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, is set out herein below:

    (Emphasis added)

English translation of the above, is as follows:

"Order

1) Appeal preferred by the Appellant is partly allowed.

2) Order passed by the Collector, Kolhapur in Dispute-Application No.16/2021 on the date 24/6/2022 is set aside. As mentioned in the Judgement in this matter, the Machinery/Department concerned shall complete the process of carrying out survey in respect of the Public road and the property in dispute, within four weeks and prior to carrying out the survey, shall give the intimation in writing in respect thereof in advance to all the interested parties in the matter. The process of survey shall be completed in the presence of all the interested parties and the villagers and thereafter, the Collector, Kolhapur shall carry out re-enquiry by giving sufficient/reasonable opportunity to all the interested parties to put forth their say in view of the report received and shall pass appropriate order accordingly.

3) The said decision shall not be eligible to be treated as a precedent in other matters.

4) No orders as to costs.

5) Intimation of this decision shall be given to the parties concerned."

(Emphasis added)

3. The Collector, Kolhapur by the order dtd. 24/6/2022 passed in the said Dispute Application No.16 of 2021, allowed the said Dispute Application filed under Sec. 16(2) read with Sec. 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (Act No.III of 1959) ("said Act") and the Respondent No.3 has been disqualified to be a member of the Gram Panchayat. The said disqualification is on the ground that the Respondent No.3 has encroached upon the Government land. As set out herein above, by the impugned order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, order of the Collector is set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Collector.

4. It is the contention of Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that Respondent No.3 along with her husband and other members of her family, have encroached upon Government land, i.e., State Highway No.189. Therefore, the Petitioners filed Dispute Application No.16 of 2021 seeking disqualification of the Respondent No.3. In the Dispute Application No.16 of 2021, the Collector, Kolhapur by order dtd. 15/11/2023 directed the Survey Officer to measure the concerned property, i.e., Survey No.311 and, accordingly, after following the procedure in accordance with law, the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Kolhapur measured the concerned property on 8/12/2021 and prepared the Survey Map. The said map clearly shows that the Respondent No.3 and her family members have encroached upon the Government land, i.e., State Highway No.189.

5. It is his further submission that Respondent No.3 admitted before the Collector, Kolhapur, that she would remove the encroachment within a period of one week, which implied that she has accepted that she has encroached upon Government land

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top