The Grampanchayat Kajalamba ... vs Ravi S/O Kashiram Padghan And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17387 Bom

                                                                                                                                                           cra56.21.odt
                                                                                        1


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

             CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 56/2021
 Grampanchayat Kajalma and anr ...Versus...Ravi Kashiram Padghan and ors
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,                                                                             Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------
                             Ms. P.S.Mane, Advocate for applicant


                                                                         CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 14/12/2021

Heard Ms. Mane, learned counsel for the applicant, who contends that the suit itself was not maintainable on the ground of the bar under Section 180 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, as the suit has not been instituted against the Gram Panchayat, but against the Secretary and Sarpanch, for having initiated action under Section 53 of the M.V.P. Act, against the plaintiffs, who are admittedly encroachers. She further submits that the judgment rendered in R.C.S. No.188/1997 (page 23) does not come in the way of the Gram Panchayat in initiating action under the provisions of Section 53 of the M.V.P. Act for removal of encroachment howsoever the length of the encroachment may be as the Gram Panchayat was not a party thereto. She further submits that since the action has been taken for the compliance of a statutory provision, the suit would not be maintainable, even if the notice dated 17.6.2021 is considered, as the suit has been filed on 24.06.21, before the expiry of period of three months as contemplated by cra56.21.odt

Section 180 (2) of the said Act. She submits that the impugned order which does not take into consideration the above position, cannot be sustained.

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable in two weeks.

JUDGE rvjalit

Digitally sign byRAJESH VASANTRAO JALIT Location:

Signing Date:15.12.2021 12:22