(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7959 OF 2009 Shafroddin s/o. Habib Makrani, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Member, Grampanchayat Rajmohi, Taluka : Akkalkuwa, R/o. Rajmohi, Taluka : Akkalkuwa, District : Nandurbar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Nashik Division, Nashik. 3. The Additional Collector, Nandurbar, District : Nandurbar. 4. The Tahsildar, Akkalkuwa, District : Nandurbar. (2) 5. Shri Jaimal s/o. Kanha Padvi, Age : 37 years, Occupation : Defeated Member, R/o. Rajmohi, Taluka : Akkalkuwa, District : Nandurbar. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. S.P. Tiwari, Advocate, holding for Mr. A.G. Magare, Advocate, for the petitioner. Smt. S.D. Shelke, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1 to 4. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 26TH NOVEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20th November 2008, passed by the Additional Collector, Nandurbar, in Dispute Application No. 10/2007, thereby holding that the petitioner is disqualified under Section 16 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, as she has given birth to the eighth child after 12th September 2001. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 13th (3) February 2009, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, in Grampanchayat Appeal No. 104/2007, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner. 2. Mr. S.P. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the authorities have failed to take into consideration the fact that though the child concerned was born to the brother of the petitioner an entry has been erroneously recorded that he is born to the petitioner. 3. The scope of interference in concurrent findings is very limited. The authorities have concurrently found that from the record maintained by the Grampanchayat, it is clear that petitioner's wife had given birth to eighth child, after the cut off date. It is also to be noted that under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886, the entry in the record maintained by the competent authority and a certificate to that effect, has a presumptive value. The record of the Grampanchayat clearly shows that the child in question was born to the petitioner's wife and not his brother's wife. 4. In that view of the matter, no error could be found with the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below, so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (4) 5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp7959