1 LPA.85/2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 85 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 591 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 136 OF 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 85 OF 2010 Prabhakar Sonu Pujari ....Appellant. Vs. Amol Tatoba Pujari & Ors. ...Respondents. ..... Mr. Sriram S. Kulkarni, for the Appellant. Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos.2,3 and 5. ­­­­ CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 27th JULY, 2010. P.C. 1] This Letters Patent Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 28.1.2010 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant’s writ petition challenging the order of disqualification of the appellant as a member of the Panchayat under section 14(1)(j­3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1953 on the ground that the petitioner had encroached on a government land. 2 LPA.85/2010 2] While entertaining the appeal on 6.4.2010, this Court had granted stayed initiation of proceedings for holding the election for filling the vacancy in office upon disqualification of the appellant. 3] The learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record the order dated 31.5.2010 of the Dy. Director of Land Records, Pune Division, Pune allowing the appellant's appeal against the order dated 29.2.1995 of the Superintendent, Land Records, Sangli, by which the land in question was held to be government land. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the appeal has been allowed and the order of the Superintendent, Land Records is set aside, the very foundation of initiating disqualification proceeding against the appellant has disappeared, and therefore, the order of disqualification must be set aside and the petitioner be allowed to hold the office of member of the Panchayat. 4] Learned counsel for the State opposes the appeal, and submits that by the order dated 31.5.2010, the Dy. Dirctor, Land Records, has merely remanded the matter to the Superintendent of Land Records, Sangli for fresh inquiry and that no finding is given that the land belongs to the petitioner or that the land does not belong to the petitioner. 5] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find considerable substance in the submission made by the leaned counsel for the State that as of now there is no finding in favour of the 3 LPA.85/2010 appellant about the ownership of the land in question and that the matter is merely remanded for fresh inquiry to the Superintendent of Land Records, Sangli. As on the date on which the order of disqualification was passed, the land was held to be government land, and therefore, we cannot accept the appellant’s contention that the order of disqualification deserves to be set aside on the basis of the reasoned order dated 31.5.2010 of the Dy. Director of Land Records. 6] In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, we are of the view that the proceedings pending before the Superintendent, Land Records, Sangli pursuant to the reasoned order dated 31.5.2010 ought to be concluded as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, while dismissing the appeal, we direct the Superintendent, Land Records, Sangli to complete the proceedings remanded to him as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. The above direction is given in view of the assurance being given by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant will cooperate for early completion of the proceedings before the Superintendent, Land Records. 7] Until the Superintendent, Land Records completes the inquiry as directed above, the interim order passed by this Court on 6.4.2010 staying election proceedings for filling in the vacancy on 4 LPA.85/2010 account of disqualification of the appellant shall continue. In other words, the election shall not be held for filling in the vacancy till the Superintendent, Land Records takes decision in the matter as aforesaid. 8] In case the appellant succeeds in the inquiry about title to the land in question, it will be open to the appellant to move the competent authority for revocation of the order of disqualification. 9] It is clarified that we have neither gone into the merits of the appellant’s claim raised in the appeal regarding ownership over the land in question, nor we have gone into the merits of the defence pleaded on behalf of the State regarding the government ownership of the land. All issues are kept open. 10] Subject to the above direction and observations, the appeal is dismissed. 11] In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the civil application is also dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 5 LPA.85/2010