SAVITABAI SANJAY MESHRAM Vs. ARVIND BHIMRAOJI MHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed the above petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 31/01/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati, by which order the Appeal filed by the petitioner came to be rejected and thereby the order dated 6/7/2009 passed by the Additional Collector in Application being No.16/Ashtgaon/14(1) (3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 came to be confirmed.

(3.) IN so far as the disqualification of the petitioner is concerned, against the order dated 6/7/2009 passed by the Additional Collector the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner Amravati. As mentioned herein above, the person who passed the order as Additional Collector in the revenue proceedings is the incumbent of the office of the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner holding that the husband of the petitioner has carried out encroachment and therefore the petitioner be disqualified under Section 14(1)(j3) of the said Act for the post of member of Grampanchayat. As can be seen, therefore, the same person discharging the duties of two authorities has passed contradictory orders in the two proceedings which have run parallel. IN so far as the proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are concerned, the Additional Collector thought it fit to remand the matter back to the Tahsildar to ascertain as to whether the husband of the petitioner is a beneficiary under the `Gharkul Scheme' and thereby postponed the decision as regards the allegation of encroachment being carried out by the husband of the petitioner. However, the same person whilst exercising powers under the Gram Panchayat Act as in charge Additional Commissioner has held that the petitioner be disqualified on account of the fact that her husband has carried out unauthorized construction. IN my view, the least that was expected from the authority was that in view of the order passed by him earlier as an Additional Collector remanding the matter back to the Tahsildar as regards alleged encroachment carried out by the petitioner, he should have stayed the decision on the Appeal filed by the petitioner against her disqualification by the order dated 6/7/2009 passed by the Additional Collector.