1208wp3568.11.odt 1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3568 OF 2011. Ramesh Ganesh Mohod and anr. ..vs.. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati and ors. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. Bhushan Mohta, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. M.R.Joharapurkar, Adv. for R.3. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 12th August, 2011. 1. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 7/7/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner by which order the Appeal filed by the petitioners herein came to be rejected and the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 30/4/2011 came to be confirmed. 2. The petitioners have been disqualified under Section 14(1)J-3 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 on the application filed by the respondent no.3 herein. On the basis of the material on record, a concurrent finding has been recorded by the Additional Collector as well s the Additional Commissioner that the petitioners are residing with Ganesh Mohod, who is the father in law of the petitioner no.2 who has encroached upon government land. The said finding is based on the reply filed by the Secretary of the Grampanchayat in the said proceedings as well as it is based on the documents which were before the Authority namely; two Ration Cards, which were produced 1208wp3568.11.odt 2 by the petitioners. This court to satisfy itself had asked the learned counsel for the petitioners to produce the Ration Cards which have been referred to in the impugned orders. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners produced the Ration Cards. It is pertinent to note that in the said Ration Card of the petitioner no.1 the details as to where the said petitioner resides etc. is absent. The Additional Collector, therefore, was right in concluding that from the said Ration Card it cannot be conclusively held that the petitioners are not the members of the joint family of Ganesh Mohod. 3. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners by Shri Bhushan Mohta, the learned counsel, that the petitioner no.1 could not appear before the Additional Collector as his wife was indisposed and in view thereof the petitioner was handicapped, as relevant documents could not be produced by him. In the present petition, an additional affidavit is filed wherein the petitioner now seeks to rely upon an affidavit of one Bhagwan Mohod in which it is stated that the petitioner no.1 is residing with him. In my view, the said affidavit is an after thought and is brought at this stage just to support the petitioners’ case. It is pertinent to note that in the petition as filed there is an averment in paragraph 4 that the petitioners neither received a notice issued by the respondent no.2 nor got an opportunity of hearing. Hence, the petitioners, as can be seen, seem to be changing their stand from time to time. Having perused the impugned orders and the findings recorded therein, no exception can be taken to the same. No case for interdiction is, therefore, made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE chute 1208wp3568.11.odt 3