-: 1 :- wp-3500/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3500 OF 2011. Shivaji Kirshna Maragle. ..Petitioner. Versus Lahu Shankar Kore & Ors. ..Respondents. WRIT PETITION NO. 3501 OF 2011. Rajendra Appaso Kamble. ..Petitioner. Versus Lahu Shankar Kore & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Amit Borkar for the petitioners. Mr. Prathamesh Bharugude for respondent no.1. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : May 5, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The petitions pertain to the disqualification proceedings under the provisions of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The point involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, therefore both these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In a general election for the village panchayat held in May 2010, the petitioners were elected as members of the panchayat. Respondent no.1 thereafter filed an application before the srp -: 2 :- wp-3500/11 Collector under the provisions of section 16 claiming that the petitioners are disqualified under section 14(1)(J-3) viz., the petitioners have encroached upon the government land. After hearing the petitioners and respondent no.1, the collector found that the petitioners have encroached on the Government land and therefore they were held ineligible to contest the election and consequently disqualified to hold the post of member of village panchyat. This order is confirmed by the Additional Commissioner on 15/4/2011 and therefore the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Amit Borkar, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that the petitioners have constructed their houses on the government land. He submitted that, however, that construction has taken place prior to 1990. He submitted that the said land belongs to the Government and under section 52 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, the said land is given to gram panchayat for management and the gram panchayat by passing a resolution has levied assessment against the petitioners. In his submission the petitioners cannot said to be encroachers. He further submitted that the petitioners and other similarly situated persons have already filed proceedings for regularisation of their encroachment and the construction is likely to be regularised. -: 3 :- wp-3500/11 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.1, on the contrary, supported the impugned order. He relied upon extract of the Encroachment Register maintained by the Gram panchayat. 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, I do not find any merit in the petitions. Admittedly, the petitioners have encroached upon the Government land. It is true that the petitioners alongwith other residents have initiated the proceedings for regularisation. However, the fact remains that as on today the petitioners’ structures are not regularised. Mere levy of assessment on the petitioners will not regularise the construction. The fact that the petitioners have made such encroachment much prior to the election will also not save the petitioners from disqualification under section 14(1)(j-3). The authorities below have considered all the aspects from correct point of view and arrived at just decision. No error is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners so as to enable this Court to interfere with the impugned orders under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, writ petitions are dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)