1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 131 OF 2010 (Dnyaneshwar Sahedeorao Khadse vs. Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Amravati & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. FEBRUARY 23, 2010. Heard Shri Mahalle, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kothari, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 and Shri Chopde, learned counsel for respondent No.3. After hearing is over, it was pointed out to this Court that formal notices were not issued as the parties were on caveat. Hence, notice to Respondent No. 2 is dispensed with. As I am satisfied that the matter needs to be sent back to Additional Collector, Washim, the facts necessary only for that purpose are mentioned. The authorities have found the petitioner disqualified because of his encroachment on government land admeasuring 28' x 28'. Basically, two documents are relied upon for said said purpose. First document is spot inspection report of the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Kamptha which mentions that the petitioner has encroached on this vacant portion situated on other side of road opposite his residence by erecting a tin shed and 2 by housing cattles there. The Gram Panchayat also pointed out that the petitioner has submitted a reply in writing that the encroachment then existing was not done by him but by Anil Sahadeorao Khadse. The second document relied upon is the report of Talathi, Kamptha. The perusal of said report shows that it is dated 08.06.2009 and forwarded to the office of Additional Collector because of summons dated 04.06.2009 received by Talathi from that office. It mentions that on the day of spot inspection, said portion 28' x 28' was open to sky and goods of Gyaneshwar Khadse was lying on it. However, there is a line which states that said plot is in possession of the petitioner. This is also accompanied by a map which shows that house of Gyaneshwar Khadse is on Western side of this 28' x 28' government land. On Southern side of this open land is shown a road and parties accept that beyond road, there is house of the petitioner. On Northern side of this open land, cattle shed of the petitioner is mentioned. Thus, the documents on record do not exactly show the location of or position of cattle shed of the petitioner and create confusion about it. This assumes importance because the spot inspection report dated 18.12.2007 prepared by Gram Panchayat mentions that Gotha of petitioner is on this 28' x 28' plot. The inspection report by Talathi dated 08.06.2009 reveals existence of Gotha behind this 28' x 28' open land. 3 Shri Chopde, learned counsel has tried to explain the situation by pointing out that the entire portion including gotha and open land was under occupation and possession of the petitioner. However, there is nothing in any of the impugned orders to justify such conclusion. The petitioner has contended that report of Talathi dated 08.06.2009 has come on record behind his back and has been used against him in breach of principles of natural justice. Shri Chopde, learned counsel has relied upon order sheets maintained by o/o the Additional Collector to rebut that. The order sheet dated 23.03.2009 shows that non-applicant counsel completed his arguments on that date. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 30.03.2009, 08.04.2009, 11.05.2009 and 25.05.2009. The order sheet dated 25.05.2009 shows that the Additional Collector had called for a spot verification report and a rough map from Talathi and adjourned the matter to 04.06.2009. The order sheet dated 04.06.2009 shows that the applicant and his advocate before Additional Collector were present, they produced the xerox copies of bills issued by the Secretary of Gram Panchayat and the copy of report. Non-applicant then filed their written arguments and order was reserved. The reserved order has been pronounced on 09.06.2009 and it has been then impugned in appeal under Section 16(2) of Gram Panchayat, Amravati Division, Amravati. The appellate authority i.e. Respondent No.1 has 4 maintained that order. The order sheet, therefore, does not show whether the spot inspection report and rough map requisitioned by the Additional Collector on 25.05.2009 was sent by Talathi on 04.06.2009 or was received by office of the Collector before that date. The document produced on record clearly shows that Talathi received summons from the office of the Collector on 04.06.2009 and proceeded on spot on 08.06.2009, prepared the report and submitted it. The document does not show the date on which said report was received in the office of Additional Collector but the impugned order is pronounced on 09.06.2009 i.e. immediately a day thereafter. The parties were already heard on 04.06.2009. The document is, therefore, being used behind the back of the petitioner. For these two reasons, I find that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The same are accordingly quashed and set aside. The proceedings are restored back to the file of Additional Collector, Washim, for taking fresh decision in accordance with law as early as possible and in any case by 31st May 2010. The parties shall appear before that authority on 08.03.2010 and shall abide by its further directions in the matter. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.