[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sau. Suchita Chandrashekhar Padole vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The ... on 23 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:14912
2312WP861-25.odt 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 861 OF 2025
Suchita Chandrashekhar Padole, Age-Major,
Occ: Sarpanch, R/o Silli, Tq. & District Bhandara. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Additional
Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
2. State of Maharashtra, The Collector, Bhandara,
District Bhandara.
3. Secretary, Grampanchayat Silli, Tq. & Dist. Bhandara.
4. Talathi, Silli, Tq. & District Bhandara.
5. The Tahsildar, Bhandara, District Bhandara.
6. Ishwar Asaram Kalmbe, Age 38 years,
Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Silli, Tq. & Dist. Bhandara. RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri V.A. Dahiwale, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.B. Bissa, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1, 2, 4 and 5.
None for the respondent no.3, though served.
Shri A.m. Kukday, counsel for the respondent no.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE ON WHICH ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD : DECEMBER 16, 2025
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCWED : DECEMBER 23, 2025
JUDGMENT
RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with
consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Silli has challenged
the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner,
Nagpur and consequently the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the
Collector, Bhandara disqualifying the petitioner as Member and Sarpanch
of Gram Panchayat, Silli under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra
Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short, the Act of 1959').
2312WP861-25.odt 2 Judgment
3. The petitioner was elected as Member of the Gram Panchayat in the
elections held in December-2022 and was elected as Sarpanch on
20.12.2022. After the petitioner started working as Sarpanch, the
respondent no.6, the political rival of the petitioner, filed a complaint
alleging that the husband of the petitioner had made encroachment on the
Government land and on this basis, proceedings were initiated before the
respondent no.2-Collector, Bhandara. By referring to the report of Talathi
of Silli, the petitioner was held to be disqualified under Section 14(1)(j-3)
of the Act of 1959. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before
the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur which came to be dismissed by
order dated 31.01.2025. The petitioner has challenged both these orders
by way of instant petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no
conclusive material on record about the encroachment made by the
petitioner or her husband after she was elected as Sarpanch. He submitted
that the inferences are drawn by the Authorities by mechanically accepting
the allegations levelled by the complainant. He also submitted that the
petitioner is a democratically elected woman Sarpanch and the action is
initiated at the behest of her political rival. By relying on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manisha Ravindra Panpatil Versus The
State of Maharashtra & Others [Civil Appeal No.10913 of 2024], he
submitted that the petition is an instance of an attempt by the political
rival to somehow remove the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of the
Gram Panchayat. By inviting attention to the observations of the Hon'ble
2312WP861-25.odt 3 Judgment
Supreme Court, he submitted that the Authorities are not expected to
consider removal of an elected public representative lightly and the
impugned orders if passed in absence of conclusive material about
encroachment, the same are unsustainable.
5. As against this, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 as well as the learned counsel for the
respondent no.6 vehemently opposed the petition. The learned Assistant
Government Pleader justified the impugned orders and submitted that the
Authorities have passed the orders by considering the report of Talathi and
also by considering the fact that the compound wall was removed to avoid
the disqualification. The counsel for the respondent no.6 submitted that
the petitioner has incurred disqualification and by demolishing the
compound wall, she has attempted to destroy the evidence.
6. The primary reason for the disqualification of the petitioner
appears to be the alleged encroachment on property nos.919, 920 and
876. As regard, the encroachment on Government land with respect to
property nos.919 and 920, the record reveals that the said properties
belong to the father-in-law of the petitioner viz. Wasudeo Padole from the
year 1974 and there is nothing to conclude that the petitioner or her
husband have made any encroachment on these lands. As regards
encroachment on property no.876, it is inferred by the Authorities that
there existed encroachment on the Government land to the extent of two
meters because of construction made on the said land. It is observed that
the said encroachment was removed by demolishing the compound wall.
2312WP861-25.odt 4 Judgment
As regards the encroachment on property no.876, the Authorities
have referred to a report of Talathi dated 17.10.2023 which infact
mentions that there is no entry of any encroachment over the said land.
The inference of demolition of the compound wall is also drawn on the
basis of some information given by the villagers. Pertinent to note,
although the petitioner has infact denied the allegations of encroachment,
the final inferences are drawn by the Authorities only because of absence
of specific denial appears to be without any basis. The report of Talathi
referred by the Authorities does not conclusively show that the petitioner
or her husband has committed encroachment after she was elected. There
is no material in the nature of spot inspection report or otherwise to infer
that the petitioner has committed encroachment rendering her
disqualified under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act of 1959. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court while considering the identical situation with respect to
disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act of 1959 has observed
that the matter of removal of an elected public representative should not
be treated so lightly especially when it concerns women beloning to rural
areas. In view of the above, since the Authorities have based the impugned
orders on the inferences about alleged encroachment by the petitioner,
I am of the firm view that there is no material on record to conclude about
disqualification of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act of
1959 and the inferences drawn by the Authorities are highly
disproportionate.
2312WP861-25.odt 5 Judgment
7. Pertinently, although the petitioner has challenged the orders
passed by the Collector as well as the Additional Commissioner, however,
there is no specific prayer seeking to quash the order dated 24.01.2024
passed by the Collector. In this regard, after considering the entire
controversy, the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Collector is also
required to be quashed and set aside.
8. Having regard to the above mentioned factual and legal aspects, the
writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 24.01.2024 and
31.01.2025 passed by the Collector, Bhandara and Additional
Commissioner, Nagpur respectively under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 are quashed and set aside.
9. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
APTE
Signed by: Apte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/12/2025 19:19:15
