1 wp-3145-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3145 OF 2010 Shri Dadaso Mahadeo Ghadge and ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Dilip Bodake for petitioners. Mr. Samir Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. A.V. Anturkar i/by Mr. S.B. Deshmukh for respondent no.4. Mr. Sandip Babar for respondent no.5. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. DECEMBER 14, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Bodake, the learned counsel for the petitioners, who have taken objection to the deletion of the localities in Survey Nos.5 to 8 of village Khindwadi so as to form a new village panchayat called “Sambhaji Nagar”. It was submitted that the mandatory requirements under Section 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 2 wp-3145-10 have not been complied with while deleting these localities from Survey Nos.5 to 8. 2. The Tahasildar, Satara, has filed affidavit-in-reply and has pointed out that while excluding these survey numbers from the boundaries of village Khindwadi, the required procedure was followed and Khindwadi Gram Pachayat had passed a Resolution dated 22/1/2003 for consenting to the said deletion. It was urged before us by Mr. Bodake that a gram sabha was required to be called and on the resolution of gram sabha, consent was required to be given. We have noted that the consultation of gram sabha has been incorporated under the scheme of Section 4 of the Act with effect from 8/8/2003. 3. In addition, it has also been stated by the Tahasildar that the notifications were displayed on the notice board of the Panchayat, Tahasil office and objections were invited. No one submitted any written objections. The draft notification was also published in the Government Gazette dated 9/7/2009 and no objections were raised till 5/3/2010. Thus, the formation of the new village panchayat by name Sambhaji Nagar and by deletion of the localities in the above mentioned four survey numbers of 3 wp-3145-10 village Khindwadi has become final. There is nothing on record to point out that any residents of the deleted localities have registered any protest with the concerned authorities for being including in the new village panchayat. We, therefore, do not find any reason to cause interference in the subject deletion and this petition must, therefore, fail. 4. Hence, the petition is rejected. We make it clear that the action initiated by the Collector/Tahasildar against respondent no.4 or any other proceedings will not be affected in any way by this order. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)