1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 43. WP/5690/2010 (PRATIBHA SUNIL BORSE AND ANR V/S THE STATE OF MAHRASHT RA AND ORS -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.N.L.Choudhary, Adv., for the petitioner. Mrs. S.D.Shelke, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr.B.R.Warma, Adv., for R.6. Mr.S.P.Tiwari, Adv., for respondent no.5. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:12/10/2010 1. The petitioner No.1 was elected member of Village Gram Panchayat, while petitioner no.2 is her husband. It was alleged that petitioner no.2 has caused encroachment on Government property and, therefore, has invited disqualification in terms of Section 14(j-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958. 2. On perusal of the record, prima facie, I find that the land 2 in possession of petitioner no.2, the husband, is allotted for the purposes of small scale industry/business in the year 1987 and he was carrying on the activities thereof. Since the activity of pulse mill was discontinued, he was served with notice dt.27.2.2008 by the learned Collector ( Page 14 of the paper book) and surreptitiously the notice dt.12.11.2009 (Page No.15) was issued to him. 3. Petitioner no.2 has challenged the action of the learned Collector or, for that purpose of learned Tehsildar of issuance of notice by filing RCS No.31/2010 wherein he is equipped with orders of status quo. Since the controversy as to occupation of the plaintiff/petitioner no.2 in the writ being sub judice before the competent civil forum, the Revenue Authorities, particularly, the learned Additional Collector, Dhule, could not have decided the fate of the matter and, particularly when petitioner no.1 3 Smt.Pratibha is elected member, while the petitioner no.2 holds the position as husband and alleged encroacher on the Government property. 4. The observations of the learned Additional Commissioner at Nashik, while rejecting the contention of the writ petitioner, is not supported with the averments either in the plaint or the prayer clause. In the set of above facts, the disqualification slapped to the petitioner no.1 for so called encroachment by her husband petitioner no.2 was unwarranted, uncalled for, beyond the scope of powers in the authority, it is set aside. Petition allowed. The observations are prima facie, to be restricted to the present controversy. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/5690-10wp