1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2/2010. ( Tulshiram Uttamrao Apale . -: versus :- The Additional Commissioner Amravati and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JANUARY 11, 2010. Heard Shri K.S. Narwade, learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2, Shri Dhomne, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Shri A.J. Kadu, learned counsel for respondent no.4. Civil Application No. 50/2010. Heard. Civil Application is allowed. …. The Authorities below have found that, the petitioner has encroached upon the government land and therefore, is disqualified under Section 14[1][j-3] of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. 2 Shri Narwade, learned counsel for petitioner contends that, the communication dated 06.10.2008 does not mention any encroachment on government land and map of alleged encroachment has not been proved, in accordance with law. He further states that, the petitioner is residing in plot no.311, which has fallen to the share of his brother in partition and this fact is also overlooked by the Authorities. Lastly he contends that the petitioner was all the while making inquiries and recently he learnt that the proceeding for removal of encroachment were initiated by the Revenue Authorities, against his father Uttam, but those proceeding ended in favour Uttam. He points out that, when he tried to obtain necessary information in relation to those proceeding, the records could not be traced out by the concerned information officer. Learned A.G.P. as also Shri Kadu and Shri Dhomne, learned counsel supports the impugned order. After the learned counsel for respondents finished their arguments, Shri Narwade, contended that the disqualification under clause [j-3] has been added in the year 2006 and encroachment prior to 2006 are therefore, not covered by it. With the assistance of the respective counsel, I have perused the papers. It is apparent that the report of encroachment was given by the TILR, Achalpur and that document was within the knowledge of the petitioner when he contested the matter before the Additional Collector, Amravati. At that time, the defense was that the petitioner was not residing in joint family of his brother. The contents of said report were challenged but then the fact of 3 encroachment on 37.50 sq. mtrs. was not denied. In this background, the authorities have concurrently found the petitioner disqualified after noticing that along with his nomination paper, petitioner submitted tax receipt of house no.311 only in respect of which encroachment has been alleged. This finding is not being challenged before this Court. Thus, the petitioner filed nomination paper and disclosed therein house no.311. Petitioner has not come up with specific case of time at which alleged encroachment was made or its area. Other arguments of petitioner therefore, are not very relevant to show that there was no encroachment and failure of information officer to trace out the alleged records is therefore of no assistance to him. The contention that, documents showing partition were not looked into is also therefore, not relevant in this background. The contention that encroachment done before the addition of clause [j-3] of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 by amendment in the year 2006 cannot be looked into for disqualification, is misconceived. No case is made out warranting interference in Writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.