Nilabai Arjun Ibitwar vs Sanjay Gangayappa Mathpati And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8048 Bom

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  979 WRIT PETITION NO.6382 OF 2022

Nilabai Arjun Ibitwar
Age 45 years, Occ. Agri and H.H.,
Surpanch, Gram Panchayat Shivani,
R/o. Shivani, Tq. Degloor,
District Nanded.                                 .. PETITIONER

               VERSUS

1)    Sanjay Gangayappa Mathpati
      Age 40 years, Occ. Agri and Business,
      R/o Shivani, Ta. Degloor,
      District Nanded.

2)    The Block Development Officer
      Panchayat Samiti, Degloor,
      District Nanded.

3)    The Village Development Officer,
      Grampanchayat Office, Shivani,
      Ta. Degloor, District Nanded.

4)    The Collector,
      Nanded, District Nanded.

5)    Additional Divisional Commissioner
      Aurangabad.
                                      ... RESPONDENTS

Shri. A. V. Indrale Patil, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri. S. N. Morampalle, AGP for the respondent/State
Shri. D. B. Rodge, Advocate for respondent No. 1
Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                                    CORAM : M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.

DATED : 19th AUGUST, 2022

JUDGMENT :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the

consent of the parties taken up for final hearing at the admission

stage.

2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was elected as

Sarpanch. Respondent No.1 filed an application on 12 th July,

2021 contending therein that the petitioner had made

encroachment over the government land and that the petitioner

does not have wash room in her house.

3. This application was made to the District Collector-

respondent No. 4. The District Collector directed the Block

Development Officer-respondent No.2 to submit his report.

Accordingly Block Development Officer-respondent No.2

submitted the report in which he observed that the petitioner

has a house in which there is a washroom. He further observed

that the petitioner did not make any encroachment.

4. It appears that the matter was heard and was closed

for orders. All of a sudden respondent No.1 filed an application

before the Collector for again calling the report of respondent

No.2-Block Development Officer about the encroachment.

Respondent No.4-Collector directed respondent No.2-Block

Development Officer to give the report regarding the

encroachment. This time the Block Development Officer-

respondent No.2 gave report about the washroom that the

washroom is there in the house of the petitioner. However, he

mentioned in his report that the petitioner had constructed

washroom on the government land and subsequently she

demolished it. He further mentioned that thus there was

encroachment but that was removed. The learned Collector after

considering the report passed the order and disqualified the

petitioner to be a Sarpanch.

5. The Block Development Officer-respondent No.2 has

submitted two contradictory reports. The first report was that

there was no encroachment and the second report was that

there was an encroachment and it was subsequently removed.

The respondent No. 3-Collector did not assign any reason as to

why he was accepting the subsequent report and rejecting the

earlier report. In view of the contradictory reports, it cannot be

said with certaintity that the petitioner had made encroachment

over the government land. In view of this petition will have to be

allowed. Petition is accordingly allowed. Orders of the Collector

confirmed by the Additional Divisional commissioner,

Aurangabad is set aside.

.               Rule made absolute. No costs.



                                                  [M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.]


ssp