lpa315.11.odt 1 Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.315 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6131 OF 2010(D). Bhagwant Pandurangji Khadse, Aged Major, R/o. Kamtha, Tq. Karanja, Dist. Washim. ....PETITIONER. // VERSUS // 1. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. 2. Additional Collector, Washim. 3. Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kamtha, Tq. Karanja, Dist. Washim. 4. Dnyaneshwar Sahadeorao Khadse, R/o. Kamtha, Tq. Karanja, Dist. Washim. ....RESPONDENTS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.V.Band, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs.Bharti Dangre, Addl.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. N.S.Warulkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. Pravin S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: S.A.BOBDE AND M.N. GILANI, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 10, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per : S.A.Bobde, J.) 1. Heard. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal by consent. lpa315.11.odt 2 Judgment 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge holding that after remand by this Court by judgment dated 23rd February, 2010 the Additional Collector could not have considered the dispute regarding the appellant's disqualification under 14(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (“the Act” for short) on the ground that he has not paid taxes before the date of nomination. 3. In brief, the facts are as follows : The appellant herein Bhagwant Khadse had filed complaint seeking disqualification of respondent No.4 Dnyaneshwar Khadse on the ground that Dnyaneshwar had not paid taxes before his nomination for election to the post of member Gram Panchayat vide 14(h) of the Act and that he had encroached on chawdi portion vide Section 14(j-3) of the Act. 4. The Collector accepted the plea of Bhagwant that Dnyaneshwar was disqualified on the ground that he had encroached on the public property and disqualified him. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal, filed by Dnyaneshwar, upholding the disqualification on the ground of encroachment of the property. Against the dismissal Dnyaneshwar preferred writ petition in this Court. This Court found that the order suffered from an error of law and therefore, remanded the proceedings back to the Additional Collector for further decision in accordance with law. lpa315.11.odt 3 Judgment 5. After remand, the Additional Collector disqualified the respondent on the ground that he had not paid taxes. Against the said order the respondent Dnyaneshwar preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner who partly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Additional Collector for deciding the issue of encroachment only. Against the said order the appellant preferred a writ petition. The learned single Judge, however, dismissed this writ petition on the ground that the Additional Collector was not entitled to go into the question of the alleged disqualification of Dnyaneshwar on the ground that he had not paid taxes before the date of nomination. This appeal is preferred against the said judgment. 6. We have heard the parties and we find from the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.131 of 2010 dated 23rd February, 2010 that though this Court had considered only the validity of the findings rendered against Dnyaneshwar pertaining to encroachment and remanded the matter back to the Additional Collector for a fresh decision, it cannot be said that the remand restricted the Additional Collector from going into both the grounds raised by the appellant, namely, the ground under 14(j-3) regarding encroachment and 14(h) of the Act regarding non-payment of taxes. The learned single Judge remanded the entire proceedings back to the Additional Collector. 7. Admittedly, the proceedings related to alleged disqualification on two grounds i.e. 14(j-3) and 14(h) of the Act and the ground was certainly available to the Additional Collector for being considered in accordance with lpa315.11.odt 4 Judgment law. In the circumstances, the order of the Additional Commissioner restricting the Additional Collector from deciding the case against Dnyaneshwar only on the ground relating to encroachment of the property and not on the ground pertaining to the non-payment of taxes was unwarranted. 8. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the Additional Collector was rightly restricted by the Additional Commissioner to decide the only question of disqualification of Dnyaneshwar on the ground of encroachment because after the Additional Collector had initially found Dnyaneshwar to have acted in brief of 14(j-3) i.e. of having encroached over the public property, the appellant did not file any appeal against the order to make a grievance that Dnyaneshwar was also guilty of having acted in breach of Section 14(h) which deal with non-payment of taxes. 9. We see no reason why the appellant ought to have filed such an appeal, particularly when the Additional Collector had disqualified Dnyaneshwar on one of the two grounds raised by the appellant. Certainly the appellant could not be said to have aggrieved by an order accepting one of the grounds raised by him and disqualifying Dnyaneshwar on only one ground when his prayer was granted. In these circumstances, we find that the finding of the learned single Judge that the Additional Collector had jurisdiction to decide the matter of encroachment only and did not have jurisdiction to decide the issue of non-payment of taxes as it had attained lpa315.11.odt 5 Judgment finality and thereupon quashing the order of the Additional Commissioner, Amravati remanding the matter to the Additional Collector, Washim, is erroneous and liable to be set aside. 10. In the circumstances, the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 9th November, 2010 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Additional Commissioner for deciding the appeal filed by Dnyaneshwar. The ground that he has incurred disqualification for non-payment of taxes and is thus, disqualified under Section 14(h) of the Act, shall be open for decision. 11. The Additional Commissioner may decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties before him. The parties to appear before the Additional Commissioner on 20th October, 2011. JUDGE JUDGE RR..