PRADIP Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Haq, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petition challenges the order dtd. 5/7/2022 passed by the Additional Collector, Bhandara (page 75), on a complaint filed by the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 alleging that the petitioner has committed an encroachment on the land of Gat No. 105/1 and 105/2 (para 4 page 20 of the complaint). The reply dtd. 20/6/2022 (page 30) by the petitioner refutes his contention. The report by the Talathi addressed to the Additional Collector dtd. 25/5/2022 (page 60) indicates, that there is no encroachment on Gat Nos. 105/1 and 105/2 but the encroachment was by the father of the petitioner upon the land of Gat No. 106 which was the Government land, however in view of the Government Resolution dtd. 16/2/2018 (page 36), the encroachment has been regularized. The Additional Collector by the order dtd. 5/7/2022 has held the petitioner guilty of encroachment under Sec. 14-1(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, on the basis of a Talathi report to him (para 3 of his order page 74), which states that the petitioner who is the owner of the house No. 243 has encroached upon the Government land to the extent of 41 x 35 feet; the wife (applicant No.2 therein) of the petitioner namely Sushma Pradip Wasnik who is the owner of the house No. 244 has encroached upon the Government land admeasuring 23.6 x 22 = 519 sq.ft., and the mother of the petitioner who is the owner of the house no. 245 has encroached upon the Government land admeasuring 26 x 14=364 sqft. All of these are in the land of Gat No. 105 and 106.

(3.) It is contended, that insofar as the alleged claim of encroachment of Gat No. 106 is concerned, the same has been regularized, for which a certificate of appreciation has also been issued on 15/2/2020 (page 46). It is also contended, that this position is also reflected from the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Rajegaon on 28/4/2022 (page 66). It is contended, that the house Nos. 243, 244 and 245 are neither owned by the petitioner nor the wife of the petitioner and the report of Talathi on which reliance is placed in the order dtd. 5/7/2022 by the learned Additional Collector, was behind the back of the petitioner and was never put to the petitioners. It is also contended, that certificates and the reports which indicate, that the petitioners have not committed encroachment have not been referred in the order of the Additional Collector as well as that of the order of the Additional Commissioner dtd. 25/5/2023.