Bombay High Court
Manyabapu Raosaheb Shendge vs The Divisional Commissioner Nashik And ... on 12 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:31044
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1818 OF 2025
MANYABAPU RAOSAHEB SHENDGE
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER NASHIK AND OTHERS
Mr. A. D. Sonkawade h/f Mr. A. V. Hon, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. K. Shirse, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State
Mr. Amol S. Gandhi, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 12/11/2025
P.C. :-
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges
the order dated 09/12/2024 passed by the Collector, Ahilyanagar in
Grampanchayat Dispute Application No. 25/2024 and order dated
09/01/2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik
Division, Nashik in Gram Panchayat Appeal No. 128/2024
disqualifying the petitioner as a Sarpanch and the Member of the
Grampanchayat Ghorpadwadi.
2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, can
be summarised as under :-
. The Petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of the
wp1818.25.odt 1 of 9
Grampanchayat Ghorpadwadi in the year 2023 for a term of five
years. The respondent No.4 had filed an application under Section
14(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act' for short) for disqualification of the
petitioner on the ground that the father of the petitioner, namely,
Raosaheb Maruti Shendge has encroached upon the Government
land and since the petitioner was residing with his father as a joint
family he has incurred disqualification.
3. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner's
father has encroached upon the Government gairan land in the
village i.e. in Gut No.10. The petitioner's family land is in Gut No.
57 which is adjacent to Gut No. 10 where the father of the
petitioner has made encroachment on Government land. The
village panchayat had issued Notice dated 10/11/2022 to the father
of the petitioner, wherein it was stated that the father of the
petitioner has encroached upon the Government land admeasuring
800 sq.mts in Gut No.10 which is a Government gairan land and
therefore directed to remove the encroachment. The Talathi had
also submitted a report along with list of encroachers to the
Tahasildar, Rahuri with regard to the encroachment made by
wp1818.25.odt 2 of 9
various persons on Government gairan land in Gut No. 10 situated
at village Ghorpadwadi and the said list included the name of the
father of the present petitioner at sr. no. 83. It was thus submitted
in the application that a Government record clearly shows that
there is an encroachment by the father of the present petitioner on
the Government gairan land situated at village Ghorpadwadi. It is
stated that the petitioner's father has constructed a tin shed for
storage of onion by encroaching upon the Government gairan land
which is adjacent to his land. On the fact finding report being called
by the Collector, the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti,
Rahuri also submitted his report dated 19/09/2024 to the
Tahasildar stating that the father of the petitioner was served with
the notice informing the removal of encroachment made on the
Government gairan land in Gut No.10. Report also indicates that
the tin shed is constructed by encroaching upon the Government
land.
4. The petitioner defended the proceedings by contending
that the petitioner and in his father are residing separately and that
the measurement of Gut No.10 was disputed. The said Gut was
adjacent to the land of the petitioner's father. It was also stated
wp1818.25.odt 3 of 9
that the father of the petitioner has not encroached upon the
Government land and there are no entries made in this regard in
the Grampanchayat record.
5. In response to the notice issued by the Collector the
Petitioner contended before the Collector that the tin shed made
for the storage of onion is owned by one Sarjerao Thorat and the
Grampanchayat Ghorpadwadi had taken action against him in
pursuant to the resolution No. 06/2 dated 30/01/2024. It is also
contended by the petitioner that the name of the father of the
petitioner is not appearing on form No.8 of land Gut No.10 which is
Government gairan land and thus he has not encroached upon the
same.
6. Having considered the rival submissions the Collector
disqualified the petitioner holding that the petitioner's father has
encroached upon the land Gut No. 10. The Collector took into
consideration the notice of removal of encroachment upon the
father of the petitioner dated 10/11/2022 and that there was no
response given by the father of the petitioner. The Collector also
held that there is no encroachment by Mr. Sarjerao Thorat. It is
wp1818.25.odt 4 of 9
also seen that from the ration card that the father of the petitioner
along with the family members are staying jointly. In 2024 the
family of the petitioner along with his father have taken benefit of
the Government scheme. Considering this aspect of the matter and
relying upon the judgment of Janabai Versus Additional
Commissioner and others, 2019(1) SCC 272 , the Collector
disqualified the petitioner as a member and the Sarpanch of the
village panchayat, for having encroached on Government land. The
order of the Collector has been upheld by the Additional
Commissioner in an appeal filed by the petitioner.
7. Challenging the order passed by the Authorities below,
the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner
and his father are residing separately. They are not staying in a
joint family and that the petitioner had applied for measurement of
disputed Gut Nos.10 and 57 which are adjacent to each other.
However, measurement has not been carried out and therefore,
there was no material on record to come to the conclusion that
there is an encroachment made by the father of the petitioner.
8. Considered the rival submissions and I have also
wp1818.25.odt 5 of 9
perused the order of the Collector as well as the Appellate
Authority. The authorities have relied upon the report of the Talathi,
Rahuri dated 11/11/2022, wherein the Talathi has provided names
of 107 persons who had encroached upon the Government land.
The petitioner's father's name is at sr. no. 83. It is mentioned that
the father of the petitioner has encroached upon the Gut No. 10
admeasuring 800 sq.ft land. Ration card bearing No.203786 shows
names of 6 adult and 2 children total 8 persons, wherein the name
of present petitioner is also mentioned in the ration card along with
the father of the petitioner. So also, ration was lifted by the
petitioner as a joint family which indicate that the petitioner is
living in the joint family with his father. One Mr. Sarjerao Thorat
had made an application dated 25/01/2024 to the village
panchayat for regularization of the onion shed constructed in Gut
No.10. However, the report of Talathi does not indicate the name of
Sarjerao Thorat as an encroacher of Gut No.10. On spot verification
of Gut No.10 by the Block Development Officer it was found that
there was a tin shed on Gut No.10. The same tin shed belongs to
the father of the petitioner and the same can be seen from the
notice given to the father of the petitioner. Considering this aspect
wp1818.25.odt 6 of 9
there is no contra material on record to indicate that the
petitioner's father has not encroached upon the Government land.
There is no response to the notice of removal of encroachment by
the father of the petitioner. Both Authorities below have
concurrently held that the petitioner's father has encroached upon
the Government land in Gut No.10. Gramsevak (Officer of the
Panchayat) has submitted a report dated 05/08/2024 on
encroachment to the Block Development Officer. The Gramsevak in
his report has stated that he has visited the place of encroachment
and conducted spot inspection of the place of alleged
encroachment. When he visited the shed one Mr. Sarjerao Ramdas
Thorat claimed that the shed belongs to him and that he had made
an application for the shed to be regularization in his name on
29/01/2024. However, the Grampanchayat in the monthly meeting
dated 30/01/2024 in terms of the resolution no.6/2 directed
removal of the said construction being on the gairan land. As such,
the Grampanchayat issued notice to the Sarjerao Ramdas Thorat.
In response to the notice Sarjerao Ramdas Thorat has stated that
the large number of people have encroached upon the Government
land on Gut Nos.10 and 11. The report of Gramsevak mentions that
wp1818.25.odt 7 of 9
the petitioner's father has not made encroachment on Gut No.10.
The petitioner has placed reliance on this report of the Gramsevak.
It is to be noted that the Gramsevak is the officer of the village
panchayat. There is no denial to the notice of encroachment being
received by the father of the petitioner of the alleged encroachment
on Gut No.10. The authorities have rightly rejected the report of
the Gramsevak. The father of the petitioner has received the notice
of encroachment on Gut No.10 and that he has not responded to
the notice. As regards Mr. Sarjerao Ramdas Thorat claiming to be
the owner of the shed by application dated 29/01/2024 is only to
absolve the petitioner from the disqualification.
9. The authorities have rightly not relied upon the report of
05/07/2024 of the Gramsevak. The disqualification of the petitioner
is based on following established facts. The petitioner and his
father are living in joint family. The petitioner's father encroached
over Gut No.10 which is a Government land and it is clearly seen in
the notice issued to the father of the petitioner. The father of
petitioner has not responded to the notice stating that he does not
own the property i.e. a tin shed. On spot inspection a tin shed was
found on Gut No.10. Ownership of Sarjerao Ramdas Thorat of the
wp1818.25.odt 8 of 9
tin shed in Gut No.10 is also doubtful. Considering all these facts,
the authorities have held that the father of the petitioner has
encroached upon the Government land and disqualified the
petitioner, relying upon the law laid down in the case of Janabai
Versus Additional Commissioner and others (supra).
10. No case is made out for interference, writ petition
stands dismissed.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
interim order passed by this Court be continued.
12. The said request is rejected.
(ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.)
ssp
wp1818.25.odt 9 of 9
