1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5055 OF 2010 (Umrao Govinda Dhande vs. The learned Additional Commissioner & 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. OCTOBER 15, 2010. Heard Shri Lohiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Deshpande, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri Bobde, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 – Caveator. The petitioner has been held disqualified for committing encroachment by the Additional Collector on 23.12.2008 and by the appellate authority on 21.09.2010. The authorities have found that fact of encroachment was concealed by the petitioner while filing nomination paper, the case for encroachment was registered against the petitioner and he paid fine also of Rs.200/- on two occasions. There is a remark earlier that encroachment is on land reserved for kacha road and hence it cannot be compounded. The enquiry report by Naib Tahsildar reveals that the petitioner is a member of a joint family and encroachment has been recorded since the year 1989-90 in the name of his father. All this has been looked into and thereafter finding has been 2 delivered. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment in the case of Javed Sheikh Mustaque Patel vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2009 (3) All MR 40 and subsequent judgment in the case of Ravikiran Abasaheb Deshmukh vs. Additional Commissioner, reported at 2010 (2) All MR 5. The learned AGP has supported the order. In the case of Javed Sheikh Mustaque Patel vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), the provisions of Section 44-1(e) of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 are looked into and the scheme there is entirely different. The judgment, therefore, is not relevant. In Ravikiran Abasaheb Deshmukh vs. Additional Commissioner (supra) is also not applicable because here necessary enquiry has been conducted. The authorities have considered entire material available on her. The material shows the conflict between the duty of the petitioner and his interest in encroachment. The orders are, therefore, in accordance with law. There is no jurisdictional error. Writ Petition is rejected. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.