Geeta Pundalik Nandokar vs Additional Commissioner, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6749 Bom

                                          1                                                               wp1814.15


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                                 
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 1814 OF 2015




                                                                   
    Geeta Pundalik Nandokar,
    aged Major, Occupation 
    Gram Panchayat Member, 
    R/o Gaigaon Khurd, Tah.




                                                                  
    Shegaon, District Buldana.                                        ... PETITIONER

                                               VERSUS

    1. Additional Commissioner,




                                               
         Amravati Division, Amravati.

    2. The Collector, Buldana,
         District Buldana.
                             
                            
    3. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat,
         Gaigaon Khurd, Tah. Shegaon,
         District Buldana.

    4. Chandrakant Haribhau
      

         Sahastrabuddhe, aged 40 years,
         Occupation Agriculturist, R/o
   



         Gaigaon Khurd, Tah. Shegaon,
         District Buldana.                                          ... RESPONDENTS

                                              ....
    Shri P.S. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the petitioner.





    Smt.   A.R.   Taiwade,   Assistant   Government   Pleader   for   respondent   Nos.1 
    and 2.
                                              ....


                                            CORAM : PRASANNA B.VARALE, J.

DATED : 29TH NOVEMBER, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

2 wp1814.15

consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective

parties. Smt. A.R. Taiwade, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives

notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. None appears on behalf of

respondent No.3 though he is duly served. None for respondent No.4.

2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order

dated 20.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner,

Amravati Division, Amravati thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by

the petitioner challenging the order of the learned Additional Collector,

Buldana dated 29.03.2014.

3. The petitioner was elected as the Member of Gram Panchayat,

Gaigaon Khurd, Tah. Shegaon, District Buldana. The respondent No.4

initiated the proceedings seeking disqualification of the petitioner under

Section 14(J-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. It is alleged by

respondent No.4 that the petitioner encroached upon the government

land. It is further alleged that the encroachment of the petitioner causes

inconvenience as it is an obstruction on a public way. It is stated that as

the petitioner indulged in an act of encroachment by mis-utilizing her

position as the Member of Gram Panchayat, she be declared disqualified

for holding the post of Gram Panchayat Member. The petitioner, by filing

reply, denied the allegations. It is submitted by the petitioner in the reply

that the petitioner is in occupation and possession of the area to the extent

3 wp1814.15

of 80.4 square meters of plot No.97. It is submitted that the allegation

against the petitioner that she had encroached upon the government land

is utterly false and baseless. It is submitted in the reply that as the

petitioner and respondent No.4 are carrying different political ideology,

the respondent No.3 with an oblique motive, initiated proceedings against

the petitioner. The petitioner also placed on record certain documents in

support of his contention before the authority namely the Additional

Collector, Buldana. The Additional Collector, Buldana, on hearing the

parties as well as on perusal of the material, allowed the application of

respondent No.4 and thereby held that the petitioner suffers

disqualification. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner

preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional

Commissioner by maintaining the order of the Additional Collector dated

29.03.2014, dismissed the appeal.

4. Shri Kshirsagar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner

vehemently submits that both the authorities namely the Additional

Collector and the Additional Commissioner grossly erred in arriving at a

conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for an encroachment on the

government land. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner placed on record all the relevant material to

show that the area namely 80.4 square meters is owned and possessed by

the petitioner. The said area was purchased by the petitioner by paying

4 wp1814.15

the valid consideration. Shri Kshirsagar, the learned Counsel further

submits that the Additional Collector failed to appreciate the report

submitted by the Traffic Inspector of MSRTC, Shegaon Depot. It was

stated in the report that the cause for discontinuing plying of the ST buses

was the disturbed electricity wire due to the construction in front of the

school building. It was clearly stated in the report that the plying of ST

buses was not stopped because of the construction at the project building

under the scheme known as "Panlot Vikas". The learned Counsel for the

petitioner invites my attention to the documents placed on record namely

the copy of Akhiv Patrika, the copy of the property tax register, the

certificate issued by the Secretary of the scheme namely "Rashtriya Panlot

Vikas Samiti" and the copy of sale deed in respect of the said land. Shri

Kshirsagar, the learned Counsel further submits that though the term of

the petitioner as Member of Gram Panchayat, Gaigaon Khurd is

concluded, the orders passed by the authorities and impugned in the

petition being unsustainable are required to be set aside as the petitioner

apprehends that by mis-utilizing these orders, the petitioner may be

prevented from contesting the election in future and the same would cause

a serious prejudice to the petitioner.

5. Smt. Taiwade, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

supports the orders impugned in the petition.

5 wp1814.15

6. On hearing the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, I find

considerable merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the

petitioner. As stated above, the respondent No.4, by approaching the

authority namely the Additional Collector, sought disqualification of the

petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was indulged in the act of

encroachment on the government land. The allegation is in respect of

certain construction in the building erected under the scheme known as

"Panlot Vikas Karyakram". The said area is to the extent of 80.4 square

meters of plot No.97 bearing Nazul Sheet No.1. The respondent No.4

alleged that because of the said construction, the State Transport

Corporation discontinued plying of the buses as it was causing

inconvenience for plying the buses. It is the submission of the petitioner

that the construction of the building under the scheme known as "Panlot

Vikas Karyakram" was on the land owned and possessed by the petitioner

herself. The copy of Akhiv Patrika placed on record clearly shows that one

Shri Rambhau Baliram Nandokar was the original owner of the land and

the said land was purchased by the petitioner. The Property Tax Register

shows that the petitioner and her husband Pundalik Pandhari Nandokar

are the joint owner and possessor of the said land. The copy of the

Property Tax Register further shows that a building was constructed over

the land under the scheme floated namely "Rashtriya Panlot Vikas

Karyakram" through the Central Government and executed through the

6 wp1814.15

State of Maharashtra. The certificated dated 31.03.2007 issued by the

Secretary of the "Rashtriya Panlot Vikas Abhiyan" shows that the scheme

namely "Panlot Yojana" was to be floated and executed in the village

Gaigaon Khurd. The Taluka Agricultural Officer along with the responsible

persons of the locality/village conducted verification of the availability of

government land for the said project. As no government land was

available, the husband of the petitioner Pundalik Nandokar who was the

President of the said scheme, offered his own land for construction of the

building known as "Panlot Bhavan". The information provided to the

petitioner's husband under Right to Information Act through the Secretary

reveals that the building was constructed under the scheme namely

"Panlot Vikas Karyakram". When all these material presented before the

Additional Collector, the Additional Collector only on assumption and

presumption arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of

encroachment on the government land. Though the Additional Collector

in his order referred to a joint report, the said report is not placed on

record along with the reply filed by the State. The Additional Collector

then refers to the report of the Traffic Inspector of the State Road

Transport Corporation, Shegaon Depot. Thus, the allegation of

respondent No.4 in respect of inconvenience caused and discontinuation

of the building of ST buses falls flat. The material referred to above and

more particularly the certificate issued by the Secretary dated 31.03.2007

makes it clear that the said land is owned and possessed by the petitioner

7 wp1814.15

along with her husband and the land was made available by the petitioner

and her husband for construction of building under the scheme named as

"Panlot Vikas Karyakram". The Additional Collector though refers to Akhiv

Patrika, records a finding holding the petitioner suffering disqualification.

7. Considering the material placed on record, I am of the opinion

that the Additional Collector clearly erred in allowing the application of

respondent No.4. The Additional Commissioner also erred in dismissing

the appeal and maintaining the order of the Additional Collector. The

orders of the learned Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner

being unsustainable are quashed and set aside.

8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute

in aforesaid terms.

JUDGE

*rrg.