Bombay High Court
Smt. Madhavi Sunil Hubale vs Additional Divisional Commissioner, ... on 29 January, 2024
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2024:BHC-AS:4139
15-wp1136-2024.doc
VRJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1136 OF 2024
VAIBHAV
RAMESH
JADHAV
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV RAMESH
Madhavi Sunil Hubale ... Petitioner
JADHAV
Date: 2024.01.29
17:35:54 +0530
V/s.
Additional Divisional Commissioner,
Pune Division & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.616 OF 2024
Nagnath Shankar Kangude ... Petitioner
V/s.
Additional Divisional Commissioner,
Pune Division & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. L. S. Deshmukh i/by Mr. Adesh R. Kale for the
petitioner in both WPs.
Mr. Sachin Kankal, AGP for the State/respondent
Nos.1 and 2 in WP/1136/2024.
Mr. Y.D. Patil, AGP for the State/respondent Nos.1 and
2 in WP/616/2022.
Ms. Manisha Devkar with Mr. Shankar Katkar for
respondent Nos.3 and 4 in both WPs.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JANUARY 29, 2024
P.C.:
1. Both the writ petitions arise out of an order of
disqualification passed by the Collector in exercise of power under
15-wp1136-2024.doc
section 14(1)(j-3) and section 16(2) of the Maharashtra Village
Panchayat Act, 1958.
2. The petitioners were served with a show cause notice
contending that the family members of the petitioners encroached
over the land owned by the gram panchayat. The petitioners
contested the show cause notice by filing reply. The Collector
appointed Block Development Officer to inspect the location of
alleged encroachment. The Block Development Officer visited the
site and submitted a report that family members of the petitioners
have encroached over the land owned by the village panchayat.
3. On perusal of the report submitted by the Block
Development Officer, it appears that the Block Development
Officer has given sufficient details of the construction carried out
by the petitioners' family members. There is no dispute that the
land owned by the gram panchayat. Therefore, the Collector based
on report of the Block Development Officer disqualified the
petitioners from continuing as members of the gram panchayat.
4. The petitioners challenged the order passed by the Collector
before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, by the impugned
order, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners recording a
finding based on report of the Block Development Officer that the
petitioners' family members have encroached over the land owned
by the gram panchayat.
5. The factual findings recorded by the Collector and the
Commissioner are based on admissible material on record namely
Block Development Officer's report and assessment extracts. Once
15-wp1136-2024.doc
the finding of fact recorded by the Collector confirmed by the
Commissioner is found to be correct, the legal inference to be
drawn is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Janabai vs. Additional Commissioner and Others, reported in 2018
(18) SCC 196. The Apex Court has held that if the encroachment is
by the family member with others and/or individually, either at
one time or at different times remains hardly of any significance
and such person is liable to be removed under section 53 of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958. Therefore, there is no
legal infirmity in the order.
6. The writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
