1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 374/2010 SMT.REKHA DRUWA BHOPE ..VS... RUSHIKUMAR VASANTRAO GHAVGHAVE AQND OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.N.C.Jetha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.V.G.Dhage, Advocate for Respondent NO.1 Learned AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 15, 2010. Heard. Contention of Advocate Jetha is two folds. Firstly, the alleged encroachment is not by the petitioner and it is by ancestors of her husband. The second contention is in any case there is no encroachment after 2006 i.e. the date on which disqualification under Section 14(1)(J-3) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, came to be added. He has invited attention of the Court to relevant document to urge that even existence of encroachment is in dispute on record. Advocate Dhage for Respondent No.1 and learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 supported the impugned order. They urged that as the petitioner is encroacher, the impugned order needs to be sustained and no interference is warranted. The application for disqualification of petitioner was moved by Respondent No.1 and in reply, petitioner has no where stated that he is occupying her own house. The 2 reply as filed is no doubt of denial but without any specific defence. The Enquiry Report also does not show that she is residing in her own house. On the contrary, the conclusion drawn by Secretary of Gram Panchayat mentions that her husband does not appear to have committed any encroachment on public land. The report of Block Development Officer dated 16.9.2009 mentions that petitioner is residing in her ancestral house since last 18 years and that encroachment on Government Land is old. The Block Development Officer has, therefore, suggested that encroachment needs to be regularized and as petitioner has not done any encroachment, no action against her can be taken. The report of Tahsildar, Hingna, dated 9.11.2009 again mentions that encroachment is old, but then states that encroachment is not on land which can be stated to be Government land. It further states that the encroached premises are being used by one Gajanan Bhure. In view of this position, I asked learned counsel for the petitioner to show anything on record which dissipates her from encroachment, but learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to do it. There is nothing on record and no such stand has been taken before the authorities in connection with disputed structure. On the contrary, it is apparent that Block Development Officer has recommended regularization of that encroachment. The fact that the petitioner is occupying the encroached portion has therefore sufficiently come on record and both the authorities have concurrently held against the petitioner. The possession of encroached portion/premises by petitioner is sufficient to attract the provisions and hence, 3 I am not inclined to interfere in the concurrent order. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rvjalit.