(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2934 OF 2011 Ramji Gyanoba Suryawanshi, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Jaflapur, Taluka : Dharmabad, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Tahsildar, Dharmabad, Taluka : Dharmabad, District : Nanded. 2. Shriram Parshuram Jagdale, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Pimpalgaon (Dh), Taluka : Dharmabad, District : Nanded. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. U.B. Bilolikar, Advocate, for respondent no.2. (2) ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 2ND MAY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, for the petitioner; learned AGP Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, for respondent no.1, and Adv. Mr. U.B. Bilolikar, for respondent no.2. 2. Contention is, certificate of income dated 6-4-2011 obtained by the petitioner, showing that for the year 2010-11, his income is Rs. 18,800/-, is not issued after holding requisite inquiry and it suffers from suppression of material facts. Hence, submission of nomination paper by respondent no.2 on its strength or his participation in the election of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dharmabad, is vitiated. Attention is invited to the fact that certificate is dated 6-4-2011, while application therefor has been filed on 8-4-2011 and in panchanama conducted in pursuance thereof, the Panchas have on 8-4-2011, found two lands admeasuring 59 R with the family of respondent no.2 with total income of Rs. 19,800/-. It is pointed out that even in his statement recorded on 8-4-2011, (3) respondent no.2 has disclosed only two lands admeasuring 59 R and those lands are Survey Nos. 139 and 158. Thus, land Survey No. 158 has been suppressed. 3. Area of Survey No. 158 is pointed out to be 2 Hectares and 6 R and, therefore, total holding with respondent no.2 comes to 2.63 Hectares. It is contended that the respondents in their affidavit have pointed out that this area of 2 Hectares 6 R mentioned is incorrect. But then, correction in that area is also sought for the first time on 8-4-2011. Therefore, on 6-4-2011, when certificate came to be issued, the area of this land Survey No. 158 was 2 Hectares 6 R and hence, that area only needed to be looked into. 4. In the alternative and without prejudice, it is further urged that even if the area is presumed to be only 6 R, the land having Survey No. 128 admeasuring 4 R was not pointed out by respondent no.2 and hence his income has been computed without looking into the income from that land. Ceiling limit for being eligible to contest as a economically weaker candidate is Rs. 20,000/-. As in the absence of land Survey No. 128, Panchas have found income of respondent no.2 to be Rs. 19,800/-, by adding land Survey No. 128, the ceiling limit is crossed. Therefore, he is not entitled to contest election from the category (4) and income certificate issued to him is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned AGP Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, for respondent no. 1, and Adv. Mr. U.B. Bilolikar, for respondent no.2, have invited attention to respective replies and urged that orders passed are in accordance with law. 6. Learned AGP Mr. Ghute Patil today, has invited attention of court to original register in which area of Survey No. 158 has always been recorded as only .06 R. According to him, therefore, that area was never reflected as 2.06 R and there was no question or occasion to correct it. In view of this document, it is apparent that application for correction moved by respondent no.2 on 8-4-2011 is seeking correction in the records which are prepared on the basis of original and, therefore, petitioners cannot take any advantage thereof. 7. The Panchas have, no doubt, mentioned only two lands i.e. Survey Nos. 139 and 158 with its total area 59 R and then its income to be Rs. 19,800/-. The authority has issued the certificate on 6-4-2011 and in that certificate, mentioned said income to be Rs. 18,800/-. The certificate refers to affidavit of respondent no.2 dated 1-4-2011 and to report of Talathi. The (5) report of Talathi produced along with the petition is dated 8-4-2011 but it is forwarded with reference to communication of Tahsildar dated 2-4-2011. 8. In this situation, though certificate appears to have been issued prior to the Panchanama, or then prior to the report of Talathi, I find that the same is not sufficient to conclude that income of respondent no.2 may exceed Rs. 20,000/-. 9. Certain disputed questions arise and hence I am not inclined to interfere in this jurisdiction. With liberty to the petitioner to raise appropriate challenges after elections are over, present petition is disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/2934wp