Eknath S/O Vithoba Bhurse vs Additional Collector, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 878 Bom

                                      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

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.

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