Bombay High Court
Sunita W/O. Dewanand Sakharkar vs Additional Commissioner, ... on 11 July, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
1/3 37-wp-3823-22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3823 OF 2022
Sunita w/o Dewanand Sakharkar -- Petitioner
Vs.
Additional Commissioner, Amravati and others -- Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Mr. Amit V. Band, Advocate for Petitioner
Ms. T.H. Khan, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 11th JULY, 2022
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This petition is challenging order passed by respondent
No.2 - Additional Collector, whereby the petitioner stood
disqualified to hold the position of Sarpancha of Grampachayat
under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat
Act, 1959 and order of the respondent No.1 - Commissioner
dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of
disqualification.
3. The petitioner was elected as a Sarpancha in the year
2021. The respondent No.4 preferred a complaint before the
respondent No.2, claiming that the petitioner stood
MP Deshpande
2/3 37-wp-3823-22
disqualified as there was encroachment of Government land.
This was contested on behalf of the petitioner.
4. The respondent No.2 took into consideration the
material on record and found that father-in-law of the
petitioner had indeed indulged in encroachment of
Government land. By applying the position of law as laid down
by a Three Judge Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Janabai Vs. Additional Commissioner and
others CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6832 OF 2018, the respondent
No.2 held against the petitioner and declared that she stood
disqualified to hold the elected position of Sarpancha.
5. The petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.1 -
Commissioner, which stood dismissed by the impugned order
dated 09/05/2022. The respondent No.1 agreed with the
findings rendered by the respondent No.2.
6. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that
although the respondent No.1 had called for the record,
without waiting for the same, the impugned order dated
09/05/2022, came to be passed, thereby indicating that
procedural error was committed by the respondent No.1. It
was submitted that when the question of an elected
representative being disqualified was under consideration, the
respondent No.1 ought to have followed proper procedure and
MP Deshpande
3/3 37-wp-3823-22
only upon perusal of the entire record could the appeal be
disposed of.
7. This Court has considered the material on record. The
respondents, Collector as well as the Commissioner have
concurrently found that the father-in-law of the petitioner had
encroached upon Government land. These findings of facts are
based on appreciation of the documentary material on record,
which the petitioner could not satisfactorily rebut before the
said authorities or before this Court. In fact, in the nomination
paper, it appears that the petitioner had stated the address of
the very house of the father-in-law, wherein there was an
encroachment on the land of the Government. In the face of
such facts, the authorities below correctly applied the ratio of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Janabai Vs. Additional Commissioner (supra) and therefore, it
cannot be said that merely because the respondent did not call
for the records, the appeal could not have been dismissed and
the order of the Collector could not have been confirmed.
8. This Court does not find any reason to exercise writ
jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and hence, the writ
petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
Digitally signed by:MILIND
P DESHPANDE
Signing Date:13.07.2022
19:01
MP Deshpande
