Title: Sunita w/o Ramkrushna Pandalwad v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Decided on: 09.08.2023
+ WRIT PETITION NO. 8956 OF 2023
CORAM: KISHORE C. SANT, J.
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Gram panchayat, was declared disqualified by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. This decision overturned the judgment by the Collector, Nanded, who had initially ruled that the petitioner was not disqualified. The dispute arose from allegations that the petitioner or her family members had encroached upon government/public land. The petitioner had been elected as a Gram panchayat member and subsequently became the Sarpanch. A dispute was filed by Respondent under Section 14 (1) (j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, claiming that the petitioner’s residence was constructed on excessive land.
Issue:
Whether the petitioner’s disqualification under Section 14 (1) (j-3) of the Act was valid based on the alleged encroachment?
Contentions:
The petitioner argued that no specific report or finding indicated encroachment on government/public land. Even if there was excessive construction, it didn’t necessarily equate to encroachment. The petitioner asserted that the Collector’s finding, supported by a report from the Deputy Engineer of Zilla Parishad, showed no encroachment. The advocate for Respondent countered that a report demonstrated the petitioner’s house construction exceeded permissible limits and must therefore encroach on government/public land. The Collector’s conclusion was questioned, and the Additional Divisional Commissioner’s decision to uphold disqualification was supported.
Decision:
After analysing the presented documents and records, the court examined the basis for the Collector’s decision and the Commissioner’s overturning of it. The court acknowledged that the Collector’s conclusion relied on reports from the BDO and the Deputy Engineer of Zilla Parishad (Construction). The initial report didn’t offer a specific opinion, leading the Collector to request a second report. This second report explicitly stated that no encroachment was found on government/public land. The court noted that for disqualification under Section 14 (1) (j-3), encroachment on public land was essential, and excessive construction alone did not suffice.
The court found that the Additional Divisional Commissioner’s decision primarily focused on the excessive construction aspect and did not adequately consider whether there was encroachment on government/public land. The court emphasized the gravity of unseating a public representative and the necessity of carefully evaluating the evidence before making a disqualification decision. As a result, the court ruled in Favor of the petitioner, quashing the Commissioner’s decision and allowing the writ petition.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law
