1 lpa217.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 217 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5549 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and the Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: Smt. Nishita Mhatre, & Shri M. T. Joshi, JJ. Date : 1st August, 2011 Shri V. B. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri S. V. Kurundkar, Addl. G. P. for Resp. No.1. ------------- 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, on 3.5.2011, dismissing the writ petition. 2. We have perused the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and we do not find that there is any need to interfere with the same. 2 lpa217.11 3. The contention of the appellant, that Respondent No. 2 herein-original writ petitioner had encroached upon the government land and therefore was required to be disqualified under Section 14(1) (j-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, has been negatived by the learned Single Judge. It has been held that the respondent i.e. the elected candidate was not living in a joint family with his brother who had encroached upon the government land. In these circumstances, the learned Judge has passed the impugned order. 4. The learned Advocate for the appellant has sought to rely on the judgment of another learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5584 of 2010 (Bhushan Wagh vs. State of Maharashtra) dated 25.6.2011 which, according to him, arose from proceedings which were conducted together with the present proceedings before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nasik. The learned Single Judge in 3 lpa217.11 that case has found that the petitioner therein was residing together with his mother in a house property which was constructed after encroaching on the government land. 5. The facts in the aforesaid case are, therefore, completely different. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. 6. Hence, appeal dismissed. (M.T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) pnd/lpa217.11