Digambar Sakharam Patil (Shinde) vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6567 Bom

                                           1                    W.P.No.2546/13

                                         UNREPORTED

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
                                  AT BOMBAY

                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.


                               WRIT PETITION NO.2546 OF 2013



          Digambar S/o Sakharam Patil
          (Shinde), Age 42 years,
          Occ.Agril., R/o Babulde,
          Tq.Shindkheda, Dist.Dhule.              ... Petitioner.


                           Versus

          1. The State of Maharashtra,
          through Secretary,
          Rural Development Department,
          Mantralaya,Mumbai-32.

          2. The Additional Commissioner,
          Nashik Division, Nashik.

          3. The Additional Collector,
          Dhule.

          4. The Tahsildar, Shindkheda,
          Dhule.

          5. The Gram Panchayat, Babulde,
          Tq. Shindkheda, Dist.Dhule,
          through Gram Sevek.           ... Respondents.



                                   ...

Mr.A.D.Pawar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.D.Namde, A.G.P. for the State. Mr.B.R.Kedar, advocate for Respondent No.5. Mr.A.S.Sawant, advocate for Respondent No.6.

...

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA J.

Date : 28.08.2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With

the consent of the learned counsel for parties,

the petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioner is disqualified as a

Member of the Grampanchayat on the allegations of

encroachment made on the Government land.

3. I have heard Mr.Pawar, learned counsel

for the petitioner, Mr.Namde, learned A.G.P.,

Mr.Kedar, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 and

Mr.Sawant, learned counsel for Respondent No.6.

          4.               The        complaint        was      filed         by       the

          Respondent           No.6    before     the    Collector,           alleging

          that       the       petitioner        has     encroached            on      the

          Government land.               The Collector, dismissed the

          complaint.             Aggrieved       thereby,       the     Respondents

filed appeal before the Divisional Commissioner,

The Divisional Commissioner allowed the appeal.

5. The main contention of the petitioner

is that the Divisional Commissioner relied upon

the report dated 28.2.2012, issued by the

Collector, Dhule to Chief Executive Officer on

the basis of the report of the Tahsildar,

regarding encroachment. This report of the

Tahsildar or the said letter was never before the

Collector while adjudicating the dispute. It

appears that the petitioner was never given an

opportunity to put forth his stand on the report

of the Tahsildar, inter-alia, the letter of the

Collector on which the complete reliance has been

placed by the Divisional Commissioner while

passing the order.

6. Today, the petitioner is not holding

the office. However, as it concerns regarding

the disqualification on the ground of

encroachment which may have a perpetual effect, I

have entertained the Writ Petition and remit it

to the Collector, Dhule, for decision afresh, so

as to give opportunity to the petitioner to

comment upon the report of the Tahsildar, relied

upon by the Divisional Commissioner, while

deciding the matter.

7. In the result, the impugned orders

passed by the Divisional Commissioner and also

the Collector are quashed and set aside. The

matter is remitted before the Collector/competent

authority for decision afresh. The parties may

appear before the authority on 18.9.2017. The

authority shall after hearing the party shall

decide the matter afresh.

8. Rule accordingly made absolute in above

terms. No costs.

Sd/-

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

asp/office/wp2546.13