1 WP No.955/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 955 OF 2011 Pradeep Ramdas Mane ..Petitioner Versus Rajesh Eknath Shete and others. ..Respondents Mr Uday P Warunjikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms P.S.Cardozo,AGP, for respondent nos 2 and 3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 15th June, 2011. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and that of the Addl.Collector, Satara, disqualifying him under section 14(1)(J-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act,1958. 2. It is common ground that a disqualification is incurred by a person for becoming a member of the Panchayat or continuing as such if he has encroached upon a government land or public property. 3. In this case, a complaint was received that the petitioner, who is a member of the Gram Panchayat, Shirwal, Tahsil Khandala, District -Satara, has encroached on a plot of land which belongs to the Government. T 2 WP No.955/2011 4. Although, in the order passed there is an observation that the petitioner has encroached upon the Gram Panchayat land; a reading of the provision in question, which is clear, shows that the encroachment must be on Government land or public property. In the present case, the authorities have concurrently found that the petitioner has constructed a Tapari/shed on Government land. A notice was given by the Gram Panchayat for such encroachment. A detailed report was submitted by the Village Development officer Shirwal. However, later on it was clarified by him that he signed an earlier report dated 14.11.2007 under some pressure and force from the then Sarpanch. The matter was once remitted back for in depth investigation and report. Subsequently on the report being forwarded the finding is that the petitioner has encroached on the Government land. 5. The argument of Mr Warunjikar is that the Commissioner has not made any reference to certain documents which have been produced before him. Mr Warunjikar has invited my attention to the additional affidavit of the petitioner and particularly paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof to urge that the affidavits that have been filed, have not been referred to at all. Further, a letter addressed by the Taluka Inspector of Land Record to the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was also not considered. According to Mr Warunjikar, the property/land does not belong to the Government but is of private ownership and of one Shri Deshmukh. It does not belong to the Panchayat either. In these circumstances, according to him, the finding of fact is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of record or in any event can be termed as perverse so as to call for interference in writ jurisdiction. 6. On the other hand, learned AGP has invited my attention to the original record and has submitted that the panchanama drawn at site would clearly go to 3 WP No.955/2011 show that the encroachment is on Government land. The report that has been relied upon has also made this fact amply clear. She has opposed the additional affidavit filed today being taken on record and considered because she submits that the petitioner is now trying to canvass something which was not urged before the authority and in any event the panchnama belies the contentions raised today. 7. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused the original record so also the petition and all annexes thereto and the additional affidavit. In my view, the finding of fact does not require any interference in writ jurisdiction. The panchnamas that have been prepared at site themselves make reference to the contents and version of the affidavits filed by the interested persons. Most of the persons who have given their affidavits have been beneficiaries of the acts of the petitioner. The deponent of one of the affidavits one Babasaheb Mane has, during the site inspection, stated that he has been allowed to use the land by the petitioner. Similarly one Vimal has also made identical statement. The affidavits are, therefore, given by interested persons and who have been beneficiaries of the acts of the petitioners. The site inspection and the report based thereon so also the panchanama clearly indicate that the property/land in question is a Government land. The petitioner has made encroachment thereon. The petitioner has constructed a shed from where he is carrying on business of general store. The Gram Panchayat may have shifted its stand from time to time but the land in question belongs to the Government and has been encroached upon, is demonstrated by the contents of the documents which have been forwarded to the Collector and the Commissioner by the Government officers. There is no reason for the authorities to disbelieve the 4 WP No.955/2011 contents thereof because the findings therein are based on visits which have been made personally and inspection of the site on account of the controversy raised by the petitioner. In such circumstances, I do not see how the orders could be termed as perverse or vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record. The notice in this case was issued on the basis of the complaints. The complaints have been made and the application in that behalf has been taken on file by the Collector , Satara on 20.10.2007. It is pertinent to note that the documents that are being relied upon by the petitioner and even before me are subsequent in point of time. It is during the course of the proceedings the Gram Panchayat changed its stand and interested parties gave their affidavits. These persons cannot be relied upon to discard the contents of the detailed report dated 3.4.2010. Further, even the panchanama which was prepared after the site inspection by the Addl.Collector, Satara, goes to show that the land is a government land. For all these reasons, this is not a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)