1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4476/2011 (NANA DHYANBA KARDE VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, AMRAVATI & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.P. Tathod, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2011 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati on 20.07.2011 allowing an appeal filed by the respondent no.5 and reversing the order passed by the Additional Collector disqualifying the respondent no.5 from the membership of the Gram Panchayat. It was the case of the petitioner that the husband of the respondent no.5 had encroached upon the Government land and since the respondent no.5 was staying with her husband, she was disqualified from the membership in view of the provisions of Section 14(1)(J-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. On a proper appreciation of the record, the Additional Commissioner came to a conclusion that the respondent no.5’s husband had not encroached upon the ‘E’ Class land as the 7/12 extract submitted by the Talathi did not show that the respondent no.5’s husband was cultivating 2 the land. The Additional Commissioner held that assuming that the respondent no.5’s husband had encroached upon the land, it could not be said that the respondent no.5 was in possession of the land or was seeking the benefit of the land. It is necessary to note that though Explanation 2 is added for the purpose of Clause 14(1)(H) of the Act of 1958, there is no such explanation in regard to the provisions of Section 14(1) (J-3) of the Act of 1958. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner appears to be just and proper. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE