Bombay High Court
Yashodabai Wd/O Nago Lilhare And ... vs Gram Panchayat, Murdada, Panchayat ... on 10 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9005
1009WP5772-24.odt 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5772 OF 2024
1. Yashodabai Wd/o Nago Lilhare,
Aged about 70 years, Occu: Household.
2. Mukesh Nago Lilhare, Aged about 44 years,
Occu: Agriculturist.
Both R/o Murdada, Tah. & Distt. Gondia. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Gram Panchayat, Murdada, Panchayat
Samiti Zilla Parishad Gondia.
Through its Sarpanch and Gramsevak.
2. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, Counsel for the petitioners.
Shri S.K. Tambde, Counsel for the respondent no.1.
Shri H.R. Dhumale, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.2.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent
of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the
order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur thereby rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners. The
petitioners have also raised a challenge the notice dated 06.05.2024 and
also the corrigenda issued in this regard by the Divisional Commissioner.
1009WP5772-24.odt 2 Judgment
3. Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, learned counsel for the petitioners raised
several grounds for challenging the impugned order and primarily
submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable in law since respondent
no.2-Divisional Commissioner has failed to consider the application for
amendment filed by the petitioners and the events which occurred during
the pendency of the appeal. He submitted that by way of amendment, the
petitioners have brought on record the gross illegalities committed by the
Gram Panchayat and have also placed on record relevant documents
which had bearing on the appeal. He submitted that the seizure of articles
is without any power and authority and it is illegal. The learned counsel
therefore submitted that since the appeal came to be decided without
considering the amendment application and the documents filed therewith,
the impugned order is unsustainable on that count only and the matter
deserves to be remanded to the respondent no.2 for fresh consideration.
4. Shri S.K. Tambde, learned counsel for the respondent no.1-Gram
Panchayat has submitted his arguments in response to the contentions for
remand canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He
submitted that the articles seized by the Gram Panchayat are already
returned to the petitioners, and therefore, there is no necessity for remand
of the matter to the respondent no.2. He also vehemently submitted that
the petitioners had made encroachment on the Government land and they
cannot claim any right over the encroached portion of land. He submitted
that the Gram Panchayat acted well in its authority to get the land cleared
and there is no perversity in the impugned order.
1009WP5772-24.odt 3 Judgment
5. Shri H.R. Dhumale, learned Assistant Government Pleader also
supported the impugned order and submitted that the respondent no.2
has duly considered all the relevant aspects raised in the memorandum of
appeal and the challenge to the impugned order is unsustainable
6. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners has advanced his
submissions for seeking remand of the matter, the respondents had also
made their submissions on this limited issue. The arguments are
accordingly considered.
7. The controversy involved in the writ petition is with respect to the
action initiated by the Gram Panchayat against petitioners under Section
53 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 and consequent
seizure of movable articles belonging to the petitioners which were kept
on the alleged encroached portion of land. The controversy started in
view of the notice dated 06.05.2024 issued by the Gram Panchayat to the
petitioner no.2 thereby calling upon him to clear the encroached land by
removing the articles which were kept there. The petitioners challenged
this notice by filing an appeal under Section 53(3-A) of the Act of 1959,
which was filed on 13.06.2024 before the respondent no.2. Even before
the appeal could proceed further, on the next day i.e. on 14.06.2024 the
Gram Panchayat took drastic action of seizure of Cow Dung Manure,
Rotavator Machine, Thresher Machine, Submersible Pump and Pipes lying
on the said portion of the land which were belonging to the petitioners.
The Gram Panchayat also got prepared a panchnama about the seizure.
1009WP5772-24.odt 4 Judgment
8. The petitioners therefore submitted an application on 18.06.2024
for amendment of the appeal memo to bring on record above development
about seizure during the pendency of the appeal and also raised a
challenge to the decision of seizure of articles belonging to the petitioners.
In this background, the subsequent events were sought to be brought to
the notice of the respondent no.2, however without considering the
amendment application, the respondent no.2 considered the appeal and
passed final order on 01.08.2024 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by
the petitioners. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order have
raised challenge to the same by way of the instant writ petition.
9. While considering the rival contentions, it has to be noted that the
impugned order is passed by the respondent no.2 before deciding the
application for amendment which was filed by the petitioners. A perusal
of the amendment application shows that the petitioners attempted to
bring on record the subsequent events occurred during the pendency of
the appeal and therefore decision on the amendment application was
necessary. It has to be noted that on the basis of notice issued by the
Gram Panchayat, the articles belonging to the petitioners were seized. By
virtue of order dated 05.05.2025 passed by this Court in the instant writ
petition, the Gram Panchayat was directed to release the articles
mentioned in the panchnama dated 14.06.2024 to the petitioners on
collecting the charges for its removal. Accordingly, the petitioners have
paid the charges.
1009WP5772-24.odt 5 Judgment
10. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have filed a separate
application vide Civil Application (W) No.2153 of 2025 praying thereby to
restrain the Gram Panchayat from erecting permanent brick compound
wall around plot no.204, which belongs to the petitioners.
11. Having regard to the controversy about irregularity in deciding the
appeal before deciding the application for amendment, I am of the view that
the petitioners have made out a case for remand of the matter to the
respondent no.2 for a fresh decision. Since the parties have addressed this
Court mainly on the point of remand, their contentions raised on merits are
not being dealt with.
12. After considering the rival contentions, the following order is
passed:-
I. The impugned order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the respondent
no.2-Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur is quashed
and set aside.
II. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.2-Divisional
Commissioner for deciding the appeal filed by the petitioners
afresh, after deciding the application for amendment of appeal filed
by the petitioners.
III. The parties are directed to maintain status quo for a period of one
week from today as the petitioners are entitled to submit an
application for stay/interim relief before the respondent no.2-
Divisional Commissioner in the pending appeal. In case, any such
application is submitted, the respondent no.2-Divisional
Commissioner is at liberty to decide it independently.
IV. The respondent no.2-Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division,
Nagpur is requested to decide the appeal finally within a period of
one month from the date on which this order will be uploaded.
1009WP5772-24.odt 6 Judgment
13. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in aforesaid terms.
Pending civil applications also stand disposed of. No costs.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
APTE
Signed by: Apte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/09/2025 19:15:01
