1 wp 3950.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3950 OF 2011 Raghunath Mitthu Ghuge .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri S. D. Ghayal, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri Shinde, Advocate h/f Shri V. P. Latange, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01ST AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner is elected member of Village Panchayat Devpul, Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad and is also elected as Sarpanch on 30th November, 2009. The present respondent No. 4 filed an application seeking disqualification of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a defaulter as he has not paid the water tax and yearly rent of Chavdi and has further made encroachment by making construction of latrine and Ota infront of Chavdi. The present petitioner resisted the said application. 2 wp 3950.11 The report was called from the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti and on receiving the report, the Deputy Collector held that the petitioner is guilty of encroachment and as such disqualified the petitioner to be the Sarpanch, so also the member of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner aggrieved thereby filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner has committed encroachment and, therefore, stands disqualified U/Sec. 14(1)(j-3). The petitioner has assailed the said judgment in the present petition. 2. Shri Ghayal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no enquiry has been conducted in respect of alleged encroachment. The petitioner was not issued any notice prior to the commencement of enquiry and any report submitted by the Block Development Officer would not be binding. The learned counsel contends that the order is based on mere presumption and assumption of encroachment and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 3. Shri Shinde, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that it is on the basis of report, the authorities have 3 wp 3950.11 come to the conclusion. The same is legal. The case of the petitioner that he had demolished the old construction i. e. old stair-case of Chavdi which was in dilapidated condition and constructed the latrine within the area of Chavdi cannot be sustainable. 4. Shri Ghute Patil, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petitioner was given notice by the Extension Officer while conducting the enquiry and the panchanama was drawn. The petitioner was personally present and he has admitted about the encroachment. No further proof would be required for the same. The said statement of the petitioner and the report of the enquiry officer are placed on record and marked "X" for identification. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have perused the judgment and the statement of the petitioner, report of the enquiry officer. The statement of the petitioner shows that he has admitted about the said construction, his only stand is it was not intentional one. None the less the factum of encroachment is not disputed by the petitioner. On the contrary, the same is proved by the statement and the report of the Extension Officer. 4 wp 3950.11 As such, it cannot be said that the enquiry was conducted behind back of the petitioner. In the light of this clear factual matrix, no error is committed by the authorities below. As such, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11