1 wp6831.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.6831 OF 2016
Eknath s/o Vithoba Bhurse,
Aged about 38 years,
Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Bhadbhidi (B),
R/o Janala, Taluka Chamorshi,
District Gadchiroli. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Additional Collector,
Gadchiroli, Collector Office, Gadchiroli.
2) Secretary, Gram Panchayat,
Bhadbhidi (B), Taluka - Chamorshi,
District - Gadchiroli.
3) Madhav Yemaji Bhurse,
R/o Janala, Taluka Chamorshi,
District Gadchiroli. .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri V.N. Morande, Advocate for the petitioner,
Shri A.A. Madiwale, A.G.P. for the respondent No.1,
Shri S.D. Zoting, Advocate for the respondent No.3.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 20 MARCH, 2017.
th ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard Shri V.N. Morande, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 20:24:01 ::: 2 wp6831.16 A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and Shri S.D. Zoting, Advocate for the respondent No.3.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the subordinate authorities concurrently holding that the petitioner is disqualified to continue as the member of Gram-Panchayat as he has incurred disqualification under Section 14(1) (j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1958"). The subordinate authorities have recorded that the revenue entries show that the petitioner has encroached on 0.40 hectare Government land and this is substantiated by entry No.42 of 2006- 2007.
4. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the alleged encroachment is not by the petitioner but the possession of said 0.40 hectare Government land was taken by Shri Vithoba Bhurse- father of the petitioner in 2006 and the petitioner is residing separately after the partition in the family and therefore, the petitioner cannot be disqualified under Section 14(1) (j-3) of the Act of 1958. ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 20:24:01 :::
3 wp6831.16 The learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the photocopies of the Ration Cards, one in the name of the petitioner and other in the name of father of the petitioner, to argue that the petitioner is residing separately, however, the material on record is not sufficient to hold that there is partition in the family and petitioner is residing separately.
5. Apart from the fact that the subordinate authorities have relied on the revenue record which shows that the petitioner has encroached on 0.40 hectare Government land. The petitioner has not been able to prove that there is partition in the family and the petitioner is residing separately.
6. I find that the impugned orders are based on proper appreciation of the facts and documents on record and do not require any interference in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction.
The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE adgokar ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 20:24:01 :::