2306wp2837.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2837 OF 2011 Suresh Kisanrao Gaidhane ..vs.. Gajanan Ramaji Yeole and ors. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. V.A.Kothale, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.A.V.Gawande, Adv. for resp.no.1. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 23rd June, 2011. 1. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 30th April, 2011 passed by the Additional Collector and the order dated 31st May, 2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, by which the application filed under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and the Appeal filed against the order passed in the application by the petitioner came to be decided against him. 2. The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of village Wadhona, Tq.Nandgaon, Distt.Amravati. In the first round of the proceedings, which were relating to the petitioner’s election as Sarpanch, the petitioner was unseated by the order passed by the Additional Collector which was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner. Thereafter, a learned Single 2306wp2837.11.odt 2 Judge of this court had allowed the petition filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition No.4744 of 2010 by order dated 1012/2010. The Letters Patent Appeal against the said order came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this court. The petitioner, therefore, was reinstated as Sarpanch and has continued as such. It appears that an application came to be filed by respondent no.1 herein on 24/10/2010 seeking disqualification of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 on the ground that the petitioner has committed encroachment on government land by virtue of house property No.155. The applicant/respondent no.1 relied upon two notices issued in the year 1999 to the petitioner, which were issued by the Grampanchayat in respect of the alleged unauthorised construction carried out by the petitioner. The respondent no. 1 also relied upon the documents being a copy of Assessment Report, extract of village form No.8 and the extracts of the Minute Book of the monthly meeting of the Grampanchayat dated 28/4/1999. 3. The petitioner herein filed his reply to the said application and the principal contention of the petitioner was that the suit filed by his mother being Reg.C.S.No.10 of 2011 concerning the subject-property being House No.155 was sub judice before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), wherein it is to be decided whether the petitioner, in fact, is in possession of the property in question, which would be a material fact for considering the issue of encroachment. The petitioner, therefore, sought stay of the proceedings before the Authorities. 2306wp2837.11.odt 3 4. The Additional Collector on the basis of the said material on record namely; two notices of the year 1999 and the documents which were produced by the respondent no.1, which have been adverted to in the earlier part of this order, came to a conclusion that the petitioner who is doing business in the style of ‘Ramnath General Stores’ in the said house property No.155 is an encroacher on government land, as the village record discloses that the said property stands in the name of the government. Insofar as the suit filed by the mother of the petitioner is concerned, the Additional Collector was of the view that the said suit is as regards the inter se disputes between the mother and son and therefore the said proceedings would not be relevant in so far as the proceedings under the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 were concerned. The Additional Collector, therefore, allowed the said application by the first impugned order dated 30/4/2011. 5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 30/4/2011 passed by the Additional Collector, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner in the said appeal has confirmed the findings of the Additional Collector and thereby sustained the disqualification of the petitioner. 6. It is sought to be contended by Shri Kothale, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the application for his disqualification filed by the respondent no.1 is politically motivated as the respondent no.1 had a grievance in view of the earlier success of the petitioner wherein the petitioner was reinstated as a Sarpanch. It is further sought to be contended that the notices of the year 1999 were sought to be utilized 2306wp2837.11.odt 4 against the petitioner in the year 2011 without there being any adjudication. Lastly, it was contended by Shri Kothale, the learned counsel that since the matter is sub judice before the Civil Court, the Authorities should have stayed their hands. 7. The said submissions are countered by Shri Gawande, the learned counsel for respondent no.1, who contended that though the notices were of the year 1999, the petitioner did not take any steps to question the said notices. It was further contended by Shri Gawande that the notices in terms indicate that the petitioner is an encroacher. The learned counsel further contended that the record of the Grampanchayat unequivocally leads to a conclusion that the land in question was government land and the petitioner has encroached upon the same. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my view the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Kothale cannot be countenanced. Insofar as the notices of the year 1999 are concerned, it is pertinent to note that till this date the petitioner has not questioned the said notices. The fact that the Grampanchayat has not taken any action pursuant to the said notices would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. Insofar as the contention of Shri Kothale that the proceedings are politically motivated, the said submission cannot be accepted in view of the fact that it has been found by the Authorities that the petitioner, in fact, is an encroacher on the government land which conclusion the Authorities have drawn on the basis of material which was placed on record. The last submission of Shri Kothale that the 2306wp2837.11.odt 5 authorities should have set their hands pending the civil suit can only be stayed to be rejected, as it requires no debate that the said suit can be said to be collusive suit which has been filed only after the instant proceedings had commenced against the petitioner. In any event, the scope and purport of the proceedings under the Bombay Village Panchayat Act stand apart from the civil proceedings. 9. Having perused the impugned orders, in my view, they do not warrant any interference in the writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say that the observations made in the instant order are only in the context of the proceedings under the Bombay Village Panchayat Act and w ould not come in the way of the petitioner in prosecuting the said civil proceedings. JUDGE chute