(1) WP. 2843.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2843 OF 2010 1] Devkibai Vithal Koli Age : 40 years Occu.: Agri., 2] Vithal Tulshiram Koli, Age : 50 years, Occu.: Agri., Both residing at Jatode, Tq. Shindhkheda Dist. Dhule .. Petitioners VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra Through : Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2] Shri Yunus Sardar Patel, Age : 38 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Jatode, Tq. Shindkheda, Dist. Dhule 3] Gramsewak, Village Panchayat Elections, Jatode, Tq. Shindhkheda, Dist. Dhule .. Respondents Mrs. Sabahat T. Kazi, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for the respondent-State Mr. B.R. Warma, Advocate for the respondent no.2 None present for the respondent no.3 though served ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 10TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Heard learned counsel. (2) WP. 2843.2010 2] The petitioner challenges judgments and orders rendered by the Additional Collector, Dhule in Village Panchayat Dispute Application no.9 of 2009 and the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nasik in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction, dismissing the Appeal. The petitioners are wife and husband inter-se. They are Sarpanch and Member of Village Panchayat, Jatode situated within the limits of Sindhkheda Tahsil. They have been disqualified by the impugned order rendered by the Additional Collector on the ground that they got resolved allotment of plots to 6 persons including their son by name Sandeep Vithal Koli. A complaint was lodged by Upa-Sarpancha to the effect that the petitioners prepared false and bogus resolution dated 27.9.2008 in order to grab a plot which was purportedly allotted to their son though he had not applied for such allotment. The Additional Collector found that son of the petitioners is a minor and never applied for any allotment of the plot. Obviously, the allotment itself was bogus and brought about with a view to derive benefit of the position occupied by the petitioners as Sarpanch and Member of the Village Panchayat. 3] It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are duped by the Upa-Sarpanch and false complaint was made by him. It (3) WP. 2843.2010 is also contended that the petitioner no.1 does not know skill of signing and that her signature appears to be manipulated. I find it difficult to countenance the submission of the learned counsel. It appears that the counsel for the petitioners argued before the learned Additional Collector that the petitioners though are illiterate, yet about 2-1/2 months prior they had learnt to sign. The petitioners did not lodge any complaint about fabrication of the resolution no.6/2. Resolution dated 27.9.2008 is recorded in the concerned register of the village panchayat. The petitioners have not filed affidavit of the Gram Sevak who is the signatory to the resolution, nor showed that such resolution was manipulated or fabricated. There are concurrent findings rendered by the Additional Collector and Additional Divisional Commissioner which are based on material. 4] The Petition involves disputed questions of facts. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp