ssp 1 LPA 149 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENAT APPEAL NO.149 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3501 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.182 OF 2011 Rajendra Appaso Kamble .....Appellant versus Sanjay Babu Naik and Ors. ..... Respondents WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.150 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3500 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.183 OF 2011 Shivanj Appaso Kamble .....Appellant versus Lahu Shankar Kore and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni i/by Mr.Amit Borkar, for the appellants. Mr.Prathamesh B.Bhargude, for the respondent No.1. Mr.S.D.Rairikar, AGP, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 16th JUNE, 2011 P.C. : 1. Both these appeals are directed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.3500 of 2011 and 3501 of 2011. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge rejected ssp 2 LPA 149 of 2011 both these petitions filed by the present appellants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and confirmed the order of the Collector, by which present appellants were held disqualified in the matter of contesting election. 2. The appellants herein had encroached upon government land which is meant for grazing cattles and animals (gochar land). The Collector found that since appellants had encroached upon the said land without permission of the Government, the appellants were not qualified to contest the election and accordingly, an order of disqualification was passed by the Collector. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the Panchayat had already regularized the encroachment of the appellants and therefore, they were qualified to contest the election. In our view, said statement is without any basis. It is not in dispute that the ownership of the land is with the State Government and the land is only vests with the panchayat for managing the same and not for allowing regularization of the encroachment. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the appellants had already applied for Collector and regularization proceedings are pending before the Collector. Whether the Collector should regularize it or not, is not required to be decided by us. The fact remains that at the relevant time, appellants were not qualified to ssp 3 LPA 149 of 2011 contest the election and has encroached upon the government land which is meant for grazing cattles in the village. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that building construction permission is to be granted by the Panchayat and it was already granted. Even that be so, whether there is any encroachment or not and it can be regularized or not is the questions which are to be decided by the State Government. The learned Single Jude by cogent reasons has rejected the petitions filed by the present appellants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any error of law or of jurisdiction in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We accordingly do not find any substance in the appeals, which are dismissed. 4. It is made clear that after the removal of the encroachment, appellants are always entitled to contest fresh election in accordance with law. 5. In view of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeals, civil applications Nos.182 of 2011 and 183 of 2011 does not survive and the same are disposed of. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )