IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition no. 1763 of 2011 Keshav Bhanji Nisal ..VS.. The Additional Commissioner and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. V. G. Dhage, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. A.P. Thakare, Adv. for the respondent no.3. Mr. V. D. Raut, Adv. for the respondent no.5. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 8th September, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, on 21st of September, 2010, allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no. 2 and holding that the respondent no. 2 was not liable to be removed from the membership of the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of Section 14(1)(J-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. 2] The petitioner had filed a complaint alleging that the respondent no. 2 had encroached upon the land of the Gram Panchayat prior to his election and he continued to encroach the land after his election as a member of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner had filed an application before the Additional Collector, Nagpur, seeking removal of the respondent no.2 in view of the provisions of Section 14(J-3) of the Act of 1958. The Additional Collector, Nagpur, by an order dated 1.7.2010 allowed the application filed by the petitioner and held that the respondent no. 2 was disqualified under the provisions of Section 14(J-3) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Collector, the respondent no.2 preferred an appeal against the same before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur. The Additional Commissioner, by the impugned order dated 21.9.2010, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.2 and set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector. 3] On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the orders passed by the authorities, it appears that the Additional Commissioner has re-appreciated the evidence on record to hold that the encroachment was not made by the petitioner but respondent’s brother had encroached upon the land of the Gram Panchayat. While recording this finding the Additional Commissioner mainly relied on the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 9.2.2009 granting no objection for regularizing the encroachment of respondent no. 2’s brother Shri Sharad Patil. The Additional Commissioner, rightly considered the fact that the objection was filed by the petitioner on 3.12.2009 and the Gram Panchayat had passed the resolution, much earlier on 9.2.2009 granting no objection for regularization of the encroachment of Shri Sharad Patil. The findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner are based on a proper appreciation of the material on record and are neither illegal nor perverse. Hence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan