1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3584 OF 2009 Devidas Punju Holar & another .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, Advocate holding for Mr. A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.V. Korhalkar, Advocate for respondent no. 4. Mr. A.S. Sawant, Advocate for respondent no. 5. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 29th MARCH, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Petitioners have been disqualified for continuing as the members of the Village Panchayat in view of the order passed by the Additional Collector , Dhule on 25-8-2008 under section 14(J-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 and the said order passed by the Additional Collector which has been confirmed by the appellate authority is subjected to challenge in this petition. 2 2 It is not controverted by the petitioners that they are occupying the part of area of gat no. 288 which admittedly belongs to the State Government. It is also not disputed that the petitioners have constructed their residential houses on the plot comprising part of gat no. 288 which belongs to the State Government. Admittedly, the plots on which the construction is raised by the petitioners comprising of an area out of gat no. 288 belonging to the State Government, is not allotted to them by the State Government at any point of time either in their individual capacity or otherwise. It is also not the case of the petitioners that the houses have been allotted to them under any scheme by the State Government. The occupation of the petitioners in respect of the Government property therefore, shall have to be termed as illegal. Considering this aspect, the Additional Collector entertained the application tendered by the objector and declared the petitioners as disqualified to hold the office in exercise of powers under section 14(J-3) of the Act. The order passed by the Additional Collector has been confirmed in appeal by the appellate forum. 3 I have perused the orders which are impugned in this petition and heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. Considering the facts enumerated before the court and considering the 3 reasons recorded by the respective authorities, I am of the opinion that in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no case is made out for causing interference in the impugned order. Petition is devoid of substance, hence stands rejected summarily. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp3584.09.odt