MISSIONER NASHIK REGION AND OTHERSMr. M. A. Dond, Advocate for the v. D. Hon, Senior
Facts
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD956 WRIT PETITION NO. 10619 OF 2024VIJAYA ALIAS UJJWALA BABASAHEB BHONDGEVERSUSTHE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER NASHIK REGION AND OTHERSMr. M. A. Dond, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. V. V. Tarde, Advocate for respondent No.3Mr. D. B. Bhange, AGP for the respondent/StateCORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.DATE: 2nd MAY, 2025PER COURT :-1.By consent of both sides, petition is heard finally at the stageof admission.2.This petition takes exception to the order dated 05/09/2024passed by the Additional Commissioner in Grampanchayat Appeal No.1/2024 confirming the order passed by the Collector in GrampanchayatDispute Application No. 42/2023, whereby the petitioner is disqualifiedfrom membership of Grampanchayat under Section 14(1)(j-3) of theMaharashtra Village Panchayats Act (for short ‘the Act’) for carrying outencroachment on the government land.3.The facts which led to the filing of this petition can benarrated in brief as under:956.wp10619.24.odt1 of 6 (i)It is a case of the petitioner that in the year 2010 RamaiAwas Yojna was launched by the State Government. Under the saidscheme the person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community wereentitled for financial aid for construction of the house. The said schemealso contained the provision for allotment of the land to the landlesspersons for the purpose of the construction of the house. It is claimed bypetitioner that by resolution dated 30/05/2016 land came to be allottedto the petitioner which is recorded as house No. 685 in the record of theGrampanchayat. It is her further case that once the land has beenallotted to the petitioner and the construction has been carried out underthe said scheme, it can not be called as an encroachment on thegovernment land in order to attract the provision of Section 14(1)(j-3) ofthe Act.(ii)Respondent No.3 filed complaint before the Collector invokingthe under the said provision seeking disqualification of the petitioner forthe reason that there is encroachment caused on the government land.Collector passed order dated 20/12/2023 disqualifying the petitionerfrom the membership of the Grampanchayat. This order came to beconfirmed by the Additional Commissioner by the order dated05/09/2024. Hence, this petition.4.Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken pains to draw956.wp10619.24.odt2 of 6
Legal Reasoning
encroachment has been done on the government land. It is hissubmission that any encroachment on the public land attracts provisionsof Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act. He, therefore, seeks rejection of thepetition.6.Heard learned AGP.7.There is no dispute about the fact that the Grampanchayatpassed resolution on 30/05/2016 accepting the application made by thehusband of the petitioner for allotment of the Grampanchayat land whichwas already in their possession. The communication dated 06/10/2023by Gramsevak to the Collector supports the said fact. Now questionarises as to whether it was open for the petitioner to carry out theconstruction beyond to 269 sq.ft. and then to claim that it is not anencroachment, as covered by provision of Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act.8.As per the case of petitioner herself, the scheme in questioncaters dual purpose. The beneficiaries are entitled to get financialassistance for construction of house, and the landless person, could beallotted land in addition to the provision for payment of constructioncost. The scheme therefore applies to the land owners and landlesspersons. In this regard it would be relevant to take note of GovernmentResolution dated 09/03/2011 clause 6 which reads thus:956.wp10619.24.odt4 of 6 ^^6- ?kjkps {ks=QG %&?kjkP;k cka/kdkekps pVbZ {ks= 269 pkS-QwV jkghy- rso<;kp{ks=klkBh 'kkldh; vuqnku vuqKs; jkfgy- rFkkfi] ykHkkFkhZ Lor%P;k ekydhph tkxk vlsy rj R;koj R;kP;k ethZuqlkj vuqnkuoki:u R;kojhy gks.kkj [kpZ Lo[kpkZus tkLr {ks=kps cka/kdke d:'kdsy&jkT;krhy dkgh 'kgjke/;s 2-5 i;Zar pVbZ {ks= funsZ'kkad (F.S.I.)vuqKs; vkgs] ;k rjrqnhpk Qk;nk ?ks.;klkBh fuoM >kysys ykHkkFkhZ,d= ;smu R;kauk R;kuqlkj cgqetyh bekjrhps cka/kdkedjrk ;sbZy-**.This clause clearly indicates that in case land is allotted byGovernment, the area of construction of the house would be to theextent of 269 sq.ft. It is only when the beneficiary has his own land, hemay carry out construction beyond to 269 sq.ft at his own cost. Thepetitioner admittedly has been allotted land under the scheme and doesnot own the land. It would therefore not be open for the petitioner nowto claim that there is no limit prescribed for the area of construction ofthe house. 9.This scheme, therefore, clearly indicates that it was open forthe petitioner to carry out construction to the extent of 269 sq.ft. only onland allotted by Government. Once it is admitted that there is allotmentof the government land that Grampanchayat land to the petitioner, theconstruction ought to have been to the extent of 269 sq.ft. There is nodispute made by the petitioner with regard to the correctness ofmeasurement of the house. Hence, there is a candid report indicating956.wp10619.24.odt5 of 6 that there is encroachment on the Grampanchayat land to the extent of95 sq.ft. Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act prohibits any sort of theencroachment on such land.10.In the facts of the case, this Court finds no reason to causeany interference in the impugned order. Hence, petition standsdismissed. (R. M. JOSHI, J.)ssp956.wp10619.24.odt6 of 6
Arguments
attention of the Court to the scheme introduced by the government on09/03/2011. According to him the said scheme provided for allotment ofthe land to the landless person as well as financial aid for construction ofthe house. He further drew attention of the Court to the Resolutionpassed by the Grampanchayat, Muthevadgaon, Tq. Shrirampur dated30/05/2016 indicating that the petitioner’s husband was allotted with theland under this scheme. It is his argument that there is no limitprescribed for area of construction of the house in the scheme. Accordingto him it was open for the petitioner to carry out construction beyond the269 sq.ft. provided that the cost of the additional construction is borneby concerned beneficiary. To support this submission he made referenceto the communication entered into by Gramsevak with District Collectordated 06/10/2023. This, according to him indicates that the constructionhas ben carried out under the scheme Ramai Housing Scheme 2017-2018 and therefore the orders impugned cannot sustain.5.Learned senior counsel appearing for the contestingrespondent supported the impugned order. It is his contention that evenof the case of the petitioner is accepted that there was allotment of theland for the constructions of the scheme, the construction could not haveexceeded 269 sq.ft as provided in clause 6 of the said scheme. Referenceis made to the inspection report which indicates that 95 sq.ft.956.wp10619.24.odt3 of 6