Bombay High Court
Rupali Kavardas Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 16 June, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:15109
(1) WP-791-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.791 OF 2025
Rupali Kavardas Patil,
Age: 37 years, Occ.: Household,
R/o. Vikharan, Tq. Shirpur,
District Dhule ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Dhule,
Tq. and District Dhule.
2. Additional Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
3. Sachin Vasantrao Patil,
Age: 45 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Vikharan, Tq. Shirpur,
District Dhule. ..Respondents
...
Mr. L. V. Sangit, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S. P. Joshi, AGP for Respondents-State.
Mr. M. K. Bhosale, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 16th JUNE, 2025.
JUDGMENT:
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the
parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.
2. The petitioner impugns judgment and order dated 16.12.2024
passed by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division in
Grampanchayat Appeal No.61/2024, thereby upholding judgment
and order dated 05.07.2024 passed by District Collector, Dhule in
Grampanchayat Dispute Application No.41/2023.
(2) WP-791-2025.odt
3. The petitioner has been elected as Member of Village
Panchayat Vikharan, Taluka Shirpur in the year 2020. The
respondent no.3 initiated dispute before District Collector, Dhule
seeking disqualification of petitioner under Section 14(J-3) of
Maharashtra Grampanchayat Act, 1959 (for short "the Act")
contending that petitioner/her family members have encroached
upon Government land. As such, incurred disqualification to
continue as Member. The learned District Collector, Dhule relying
upon enquiry report dated 21.03.2024 submitted by Block
Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Shirpur concluded that
mother-in-law of petitioner has encroached upon Government land
bearing No.1429, hence, petitioner had incurred disqualification to
hold post of Member of Village Panchayat, Vikharan. Aggrieved
petitioner filed Appeal before Additional Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, who dismissed Appeal, upholding order of
disqualification passed by District Collector, Dhule.
4. Mr. Sangit, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner
submits that petitioner had taken specific stand that petitioner is
not residing in joint family alongwith her in-laws. Even it is
assumed that mother-in-law of petitioner is in occupation of
Government land, petitioner would not incur disqualification
contemplated under Section 14(J-3) of the Act. Mr. Sangit would
further invite attention of this Court to enquiry report of Block
(3) WP-791-2025.odt
Development Officer and points out that Grampanchayat Property
No.1429 is open space admeasuring 6500 sq. ft.. There is no
construction or encroachment. Merely because entry as to the
possession of petitioner's mother-in-law is appearing in the
Grampanchayat record, petitioner cannot be disqualified.
5. Per contra, Mr. Bhosale, learned Advocate appearing for
respondent no.3 vehemently submits that old Ration Card clearly
depicts that petitioner is jointly residing with other family
members including her in-laws. According to him, Supreme Court
of India in case of Janabai Vs. Additional Commissioner and
others1 has clearly indicated that encroachment by family
members on Government land or public property can also be
treated as joint encroachment by others and, therefore,
disqualification would be attracted. According to him, both
authorities have rightly appreciated material on record and passed
disqualification order against petitioner, which need not be
interfered.
6. Having considered submissions advanced by learned
Advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that
thrust of disqualification order passed against petitioner is based
on enquiry report dated 21.03.2024 submitted by Block
Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Shirpur. The aforesaid
1 2018 (5) Mh.L.J. 921.
(4) WP-791-2025.odt
enquiry report indicates that in all four properties standing in the
name of petitioner's family members. The Grampanchayat House
Nos.476 and 477 are mutated in the name of petitioner's husband.
Both these properties are having RCC construction. The
Grampanchayat Property No.1429 is in the name of Government,
but, shown to be occupied by Subhadrabai Bhaidas Patil i.e.
mother-in-law of petitioner. It is open space without construction
on site. Record do not indicate that open space is occupied or used
by petitioner or her family members. It is not the case that some
construction is made or activity is carried by petitioner or her
family member on open plot. The evidence on record is insufficient
to draw definite conclusion that petitioner is jointly residing with
her mother-in-law Subhadrabai, who is shown in occupation of
Grampanchayat Property No.1429.
7. At this stage, reference can be given to observations of this
Court in case of Sanjay s/o Babanrao Gawande Vs. Pradip s/o
Dhanraj Gawande & Ors.2, particularly paragraph no.9, which
reads thus:
"In the instant case, Pradip is not found to be cultivating
land. There is no constructed hut or house in the
agricultural field, which can be said to be occupied by
Pradip. His father Dhanraj appears to have admitted in the
spot inspection that he had encroached upon government
land and was willing to immediately remove the said
encroachment. However, there is no involvement of Pradip
and the records do not indicate that he has been enjoying
the encroached portion or has inherited the encroached
2 2021 (4) All MR 493.
(5) WP-791-2025.odt
portion. In this backdrop, the view taken by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Janabai [2018 (6) ALL MR 930 (S.C.)]
(supra) would not apply to this case."
8. Apparently, Single Judge of this Court while giving reference
to observations of Supreme Court of India in case of Janabai
(supra) held that in absence of specific evidence as to encroachment
on the Government land, disqualification under Section 14(1)(J-3)
would not attract. In present case, evidence indicates that open
space is shown occupied by mother-in-law of petitioner. However,
there are no allegation/evidence as to specific use of such open
space by petitioner or her family members.
9. Mr. Sangit, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner rightly
relied upon observations of Supreme Court of India in case of
Manisha Ravindra Panpatil Vs. The State of Maharashtra
and Ors.3, particularly paragraph no.10, which reads thus:
"That being said and having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case at hand, we see no credible and
convincing material on record to substantiate the private
respondents' allegations of encroachment of government
land by the appellant before or post her election as
Sarpanch. All that we would like to reiterate is that the
matter of removal of an elected public representative should
not be treated so lightly, especially when it concerns women
belonging to rural areas. It must be acknowledged that these
women who succeed in occupying such public offices, do so
only after significant struggle."
10. In light of aforesaid observations and factual aspects of this
matter, it is difficult to hold that only because mother-in-law of
3 2024 INSC 762.
(6) WP-791-2025.odt
petitioner is shown in occupation of open space in Grampanchayat
record, petitioner can be branded as encroacher, so as to incur
disqualification contemplated under Section 14(1)(J-3) of the Act.
Both the Courts have mechanically relied upon enquiry report of
Block Development Officer, which sans requisite particulars as to
the encroachment. Further evidence on record is insufficient to
draw definite conclusion that petitioner is jointly residing with her
mother-in-law. In that view of the matter, following order is
passed:
ORDER
a. Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (A).
b. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/June-2025
