High Court
Legal Reasoning
(1) WP-791-2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.791 OF 2025Rupali Kavardas Patil,Age: 37 years, Occ.: Household,R/o. Vikharan, Tq. Shirpur,District Dhule..PetitionerVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Collector, Dhule,Tq. and District Dhule.2.Additional Divisional Commissioner,Nashik Division, Nashik.3.Sachin Vasantrao Patil,Age: 45 years, Occu. Agri.,R/o. Vikharan, Tq. Shirpur,District Dhule...Respondents …Mr. L. V. Sangit, Advocate for Petitioner.Mr. S. P. Joshi, AGP for Respondents-State.Mr. M. K. Bhosale, Advocate for Respondent No.3.… CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 16th JUNE, 2025.JUDGMENT:- 1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of theparties, matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.2.The petitioner impugns judgment and order dated 16.12.2024passed by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division inGrampanchayat Appeal No.61/2024, thereby upholding judgmentand order dated 05.07.2024 passed by District Collector, Dhule inGrampanchayat Dispute Application No.41/2023.
Legal Reasoning
(2) WP-791-2025.odt3.The petitioner has been elected as Member of VillagePanchayat Vikharan, Taluka Shirpur in the year 2020. Therespondent no.3 initiated dispute before District Collector, Dhuleseeking disqualification of petitioner under Section 14(J-3) ofMaharashtra Grampanchayat Act, 1959 (for short “the Act”)contending that petitioner/her family members have encroachedupon Government land. As such, incurred disqualification tocontinue as Member. The learned District Collector, Dhule relyingupon enquiry report dated 21.03.2024 submitted by BlockDevelopment Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Shirpur concluded thatmother-in-law of petitioner has encroached upon Government landbearing No.1429, hence, petitioner had incurred disqualification tohold post of Member of Village Panchayat, Vikharan. Aggrievedpetitioner filed Appeal before Additional Divisional Commissioner,Nashik Division, who dismissed Appeal, upholding order ofdisqualification passed by District Collector, Dhule.4.Mr. Sangit, learned Advocate appearing for petitionersubmits that petitioner had taken specific stand that petitioner isnot residing in joint family alongwith her in-laws. Even it isassumed that mother-in-law of petitioner is in occupation ofGovernment land, petitioner would not incur disqualificationcontemplated under Section 14(J-3) of the Act. Mr. Sangit wouldfurther invite attention of this Court to enquiry report of Block (3) WP-791-2025.odtDevelopment Officer and points out that Grampanchayat PropertyNo.1429 is open space admeasuring 6500 sq. ft.. There is noconstruction or encroachment. Merely because entry as to thepossession of petitioner’s mother-in-law is appearing in theGrampanchayat record, petitioner cannot be disqualified.5.Per contra, Mr. Bhosale, learned Advocate appearing forrespondent no.3 vehemently submits that old Ration Card clearlydepicts that petitioner is jointly residing with other familymembers including her in-laws. According to him, Supreme Courtof India in case of Janabai Vs. Additional Commissioner andothers1 has clearly indicated that encroachment by familymembers on Government land or public property can also betreated as joint encroachment by others and, therefore,disqualification would be attracted. According to him, bothauthorities have rightly appreciated material on record and passeddisqualification order against petitioner, which need not beinterfered.6.Having considered submissions advanced by learnedAdvocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed thatthrust of disqualification order passed against petitioner is basedon enquiry report dated 21.03.2024 submitted by BlockDevelopment Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Shirpur. The aforesaid12018 (5) Mh.L.J. 921. (4) WP-791-2025.odtenquiry report indicates that in all four properties standing in thename of petitioner’s family members. The Grampanchayat HouseNos.476 and 477 are mutated in the name of petitioner’s husband.Both these properties are having RCC construction. TheGrampanchayat Property No.1429 is in the name of Government,but, shown to be occupied by Subhadrabai Bhaidas Patil i.e.mother-in-law of petitioner. It is open space without constructionon site. Record do not indicate that open space is occupied or usedby petitioner or her family members. It is not the case that someconstruction is made or activity is carried by petitioner or herfamily member on open plot. The evidence on record is insufficientto draw definite conclusion that petitioner is jointly residing withher mother-in-law Subhadrabai, who is shown in occupation ofGrampanchayat Property No.1429.7.At this stage, reference can be given to observations of thisCourt in case of Sanjay s/o Babanrao Gawande Vs. Pradip s/oDhanraj Gawande & Ors.2, particularly paragraph no.9, whichreads thus:“In the instant case, Pradip is not found to be cultivatingland. There is no constructed hut or house in theagricultural field, which can be said to be occupied byPradip. His father Dhanraj appears to have admitted in thespot inspection that he had encroached upon governmentland and was willing to immediately remove the saidencroachment. However, there is no involvement of Pradipand the records do not indicate that he has been enjoyingthe encroached portion or has inherited the encroached22021 (4) All MR 493. (5) WP-791-2025.odtportion. In this backdrop, the view taken by the Hon'bleApex Court in Janabai [2018 (6) ALL MR 930 (S.C.)](supra) would not apply to this case.”8.Apparently, Single Judge of this Court while giving referenceto observations of Supreme Court of India in case of Janabai(supra) held that in absence of specific evidence as to encroachmenton the Government land, disqualification under Section 14(1)(J-3)would not attract. In present case, evidence indicates that openspace is shown occupied by mother-in-law of petitioner. However,there are no allegation/evidence as to specific use of such openspace by petitioner or her family members.9.Mr. Sangit, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner rightlyrelied upon observations of Supreme Court of India in case ofManisha Ravindra Panpatil Vs. The State of Maharashtraand Ors.3, particularly paragraph no.10, which reads thus:“That being said and having regard to the facts andcircumstances of the case at hand, we see no credible andconvincing material on record to substantiate the privaterespondents’ allegations of encroachment of governmentland by the appellant before or post her election asSarpanch. All that we would like to reiterate is that thematter of removal of an elected public representative shouldnot be treated so lightly, especially when it concerns womenbelonging to rural areas. It must be acknowledged that thesewomen who succeed in occupying such public offices, do soonly after significant struggle.”10.In light of aforesaid observations and factual aspects of thismatter, it is difficult to hold that only because mother-in-law of32024 INSC 762. (6) WP-791-2025.odtpetitioner is shown in occupation of open space in Grampanchayatrecord, petitioner can be branded as encroacher, so as to incurdisqualification contemplated under Section 14(1)(J-3) of the Act.Both the Courts have mechanically relied upon enquiry report ofBlock Development Officer, which sans requisite particulars as tothe encroachment. Further evidence on record is insufficient todraw definite conclusion that petitioner is jointly residing with hermother-in-law. In that view of the matter, following order ispassed:ORDERa.Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (A).b.Rule is made absolute in above terms. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)JUDGEDevendra/June-2025