1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4755/2010 Smt. Shobha Vilas Bodkhe Vs. Additional Commissioner and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Sandeep Chopde, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. Fulzele, AGP for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. R. N. Ghuge, Adv. for respondent no.4. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 15, 2010. When the matter was called out, learned counsel for the petitioner made statement that reply and rejoinder is necessary in the matter. Advocate Ghuge for respondent no.4 opposed request and he pointed out that interim order is operating. The matter was therefore heard further. The petitioner has been disqualified because of encroachment of her husband. Learned counsel states that reliance has been placed on the order of Tahsildar which recorded that encroachment and subsequent order by Additional Collector passed in appeal setting aside it has been ignored. He further points out that 2 though the order was set aside, the Additional Collector remanded the matter back for fresh decision as husband was not given any opportunity, Tahsildar has not proceeded further in the matter at all. The matter was challenged in further appeal before the Additional Commissioner but that appeal was withdrawn because of compromise. In this situation, contention is that there is no material on record before respondent no.2 Additional Collector to hold husband of the petitioner an encroacher in accordance with law and disqualify her. Advocate Ghuge for respondent no.4 and learned AGP for respondents 1 and 2 point out that Additional Collector has noted these developments and thereafter has found that the land was acquired from husband of petitioner and the petitioner is not in a position to explain his occupation thereof. Advocate Chopde states that there is sale deed in favour of husband of the petitioner and he therefore needs time to file rejoinder. 3 It is apparent that sale deed is prior to acquisition and the observation in the impugned order was well within knowledge of the petitioner when the petition came to be filed and an order was obtained from this Court on 28/9/2010 by not disclosing correct facts. Efforts therefore appears to be to continue interim order by a misleading request that rejoinder needs to be filed. Even now facts to justify occupation of husband of petitioner are not disclosed even orally. I therefore find substance in objection being raised by Adv. Ghuge. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction. Hence, writ petition is rejected. No costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.