SANJAY BHAURAO WAGHMARE Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the original applicant who had initiated proceedings for disqualification of the respondent no.3 under the provisions of Section 14 (1) (j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short, 'the said Act').

(2.) It was the case of the petitioner that in the elections that were held in the year 2015, the respondent no.3 was elected as a Member and subsequently she became the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchyat, Navegaon (Sadhu). In the application it was pleaded that the respondent was residing at House No.139/2 and had committed encroachment on public land. Though land admeasuring 1500 square feet had allotted from plot no.5 and the same was thereafter divided amongst three sons of Budha Gurnule, construction extending beyond the alloted land came to be made and hence, the respondent no.3 was liable to be disqualified under the said provisions. The aforesaid application was accordingly filed before the Collector. The application was opposed by the respondent no.3 and the Collector by his order dated 20.03.2018 recorded a finding that the respondent no.3 had committed an encroachment and was thus liable to be disqualified under the provisions of Section 14(1)(j-3) of the said Act. Being aggrieved, the respondent no.3 filed an appeal under Section 16(2) of the said Act. The Commissioner after hearing the parties observed that the encroachment in question was committed by the father-in-law of the respondent no.3 and not by the respondent no.3. On that count, the order passed by the Collector was set aside. Being aggrieved, the said order has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) Shri V.G.Dhage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the record, it could be seen that the father-in-law of the respondent no.3 was allotted land from plot no.5 admeasuring 1500 square feet. Thereafter the said father-in-law had effected a partition amongst his sons and each son was granted 500 square feet land. In the measurement carried out by the Deputy Superintendent Land Records, it had been noted that there was an encroachment to the extent of 100 square meters and therefore as the respondent no.3 was residing in House No.139/2, she was liable to be disqualified. The Additional Collector had rightly considered the matter while recording a finding that such encroachment had been committed. Though the Additional Commissioner observed that the encroachment was committed by the father-in-law of the respondent no.3, he wrongly set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector. Relying upon the decision in Janabai Vs. Additional Commissioner and others, 2018(5)Mh.L.J.921, it was submitted that it was not necessary that the elected member himself should have committed encroachment. Even if the respondent no.3 was residing in the encroached property, she would stand disqualified. It was thus submitted that even on the basis of the findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner, the respondent no.3 was liable to be disqualified.