Elected representatives are disqualified from holding office if they are encroachers or beneficiaries of illegal occupation of government land, ensuring accountability and adherence to legal principles.

Oral Judgment :

1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2 The petitioners (husband and wife), who are elected members of the Village Panchayat, Jamdighat, Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad, are aggrieved by the order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the District Collector disqualifying both of them under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act . They are also aggrieved by the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 12.12.2019 by which, their disqualification has been sustained.

3 I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned advocates for the respective sides and the learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. With their assistance, I have gone through the petition paper book.

4 Both the petitioners were elected as members of the Village Panchayat, Jamdighat in the year 2017. Subsequently, petitioner No.1/ husband was elected as the Up-Sarpanch of the said Village Panchayat. Respondent No.3/ original complainant, preferred a complaint before the District Collector on 30.01.2019 contending that the petitioner/ husband has encroached upon the forest land and has been conducting agricultural activities. The yield of such agricultural activities has been enjoyed by the petitioner/ husband and his wife/ petitioner No.2. The wife has, therefore, 3 enjoyed the encroachment. In 2010, Crime No.12/2010 was registered against the husband with the Kannad Police Station under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The fact of registration of the criminal case against the husband was suppressed in the nomination form of the husband.

5 The petitioners have averred in the memo of the petition that the registration of a crime under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act would not ipso facto disqualify the petitioner/ husband. No offence is registered against the wife. The offence registered against the husband is under sub clauses (e) and (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. No offence as regards the encroachment has been registered. The wife is not subject matter of any criminal case and no first information report has been registered against her. Regular Criminal Case No.201/2010 is still pending for 10 years and is now ready for final adjudication. Until the petitioner/ husband is convicted and there being no case registered regarding the purported encroachment of the petitioner, Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act would not be attracted.

6 The learned advocate for respondent No.3 submits, on the basis of the affidavit in reply filed, that there is no dispute insofar as the revenue records are concerned that petitioner No.1 is the encroacher. Along with the affidavit in reply of respondent No.3/ original 4 complainant, the panchanama and the statements of the objectors are annexed, which indicate that petitioner No.1, who was present at the spot of encroachment, was counseled by the panchas to remove the encroachment and give up 04 acres of land which he had forcibly occupied and was utilizing for agricultural purposes. Petitioner No.1 became extremely aggressive during the inspection and had threatened the panchas and revenue authorities. He had used foul and filthy language and the ladies accompanying him had pelted stones at the revenue authorities. As the situation became violent, the police officers, forest guard, watchman and officers of the Forest Department moved away from the site and prepared the panchanama.

7 The learned advocate for respondent No.3 further points out the documents placed on record, which would indicate that petitioner No.1 along with his wife/ petitioner No.2 had entered an application Form No.47 under the Scheduled Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and Ru