Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Appellate Order Setting Aside Disqualification of Village Panchayat Member for Encroachment by Father. The court held that the appellate authority erred in ignoring evidence of encroachment and joint family status, and restored the disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Abasaheb Anandrao Tambe, a resident and voter of Village Pimple-Jagtap, filed a dispute application before the District Collector, Pune, seeking disqualification of Respondent No.1, Kunal Arun Bendbhar, a newly elected member of the Village Panchayat from Ward No.2. The petitioner alleged that Respondent No.1's father, Arun Bendbhar, had encroached upon gairan land bearing Gat No.420 Hissa No.1 and erected an unauthorized construction admeasuring 32 x 29 ft, and that Respondent No.1 was in occupation and enjoyment of the encroached portion. The District Collector, after considering the Circle Officer's report and assessment list, found that the father had encroached and, applying the ratio in Janabai v. Additional Commissioner, disqualified Respondent No.1 under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. Respondent No.1 appealed to the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune, who allowed the appeal and set aside the disqualification, holding that Respondent No.1 was not a family member of his father based on a ration card and gas connection, and that the encroachment was not proved. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the evidence, including the Circle Officer's report and the assessment list, and found that the encroachment by the father was established. The court noted that the ration card relied upon by the appellate authority was issued after the election and did not reflect the family composition at the relevant time, and the gas connection did not prove separation. The court held that the appellate authority had ignored material evidence and misapplied the law, leading to a perverse order. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, and restored the order of the District Collector disqualifying Respondent No.1.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction - High Court's power to interfere with findings of fact - The High Court under Article 227 can interfere if the subordinate tribunal has acted without jurisdiction, exceeded its jurisdiction, or committed a manifest error of law leading to perversity. In this case, the Additional Divisional Commissioner's order was set aside as it ignored material evidence and misapplied the law. (Paras 1, 18)

B) Village Panchayat Act - Disqualification - Section 14(1)(j-3) - Encroachment by family member - The disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 applies when the member or his family member has encroached upon government land. The court held that the father of the respondent, being a family member, had encroached, and the respondent was liable. (Paras 2.5, 16)

C) Evidence - Appreciation - Joint Family - Ration card and gas connection - The appellate authority erred in relying on a ration card and gas connection to conclude that the respondent was not a family member of his father, ignoring the fact that the ration card was issued after the election and the gas connection did not prove separation. The court held that the respondent continued to be a family member. (Paras 14-15)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Additional Divisional Commissioner was justified in setting aside the disqualification of Respondent No.1 under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, despite evidence of encroachment by his father and the joint family status.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner dated 23 June 2022, and restored the order of the District Collector dated 1 December 2021 disqualifying Respondent No.1 under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

Law Points

  • Disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
  • 1959
  • Encroachment by family member
  • Joint family liability
  • Scope of Article 227
  • Appellate authority's duty to consider evidence
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (06) 50

WRIT PETITION NO.9386 OF 2022

2023-06-05

N.J. Jamadar, J.

Mr. Sagar Joshi for Petitioner, Mr. Sanjiv Sawant with Mr. Abhishek Deshmukh, Mr. Malhar Bageshwar for Respondent No.1, Mrs. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent No.2

Abasaheb Anandrao Tambe

Kunal Arun Bendbhar, The District Collector, Pune

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner setting aside the disqualification of a Village Panchayat member.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought restoration of the District Collector's order disqualifying Respondent No.1 under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

Filing Reason

Petitioner alleged that Respondent No.1's father had encroached upon government land, and Respondent No.1, being a family member, incurred disqualification.

Previous Decisions

District Collector, Pune, disqualified Respondent No.1 on 1 December 2021; Additional Divisional Commissioner allowed appeal and set aside disqualification on 23 June 2022.

Issues

Whether the Additional Divisional Commissioner erred in setting aside the disqualification despite evidence of encroachment by the father of Respondent No.1. Whether the appellate authority correctly appreciated the evidence regarding the family relationship between Respondent No.1 and his father.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the appellate authority ignored the Circle Officer's report and assessment list proving encroachment, and misapplied the law regarding family membership. Respondent No.1 contended that he was not a family member of his father, as evidenced by a separate ration card and gas connection, and that the encroachment was not proved.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, a member of a Village Panchayat is disqualified if he or any member of his family has encroached upon government land. The appellate authority must consider all relevant evidence, including official reports and assessment records, and cannot rely solely on documents like ration cards issued after the election to conclude separation of family. The High Court under Article 227 can interfere if the appellate order is perverse or ignores material evidence.

Judgment Excerpts

The District Collector, Pune, after appraisal of the rival contentions, the report submitted by the Circle Officer dated 5 June 2021, post physical inspection, and the copy of the assessment list in respect of property No.1241, arrived at a conclusion that the father of Respondent No.1 had committed an encroachment over the gairan land bearing Gat No.420/1. The appellate authority erred in relying on a ration card and gas connection to conclude that the respondent was not a family member of his father, ignoring the fact that the ration card was issued after the election and the gas connection did not prove separation.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed Dispute Application No.29 of 2021 before District Collector, Pune, who disqualified Respondent No.1 on 1 December 2021. Respondent No.1 appealed to Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune, who allowed the appeal on 23 June 2022. Petitioner then filed Writ Petition No.9386 of 2022 before the Bombay High Court, which was allowed on 5 June 2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959: Section 14(1)(j-3), Section 16(2)
  • Constitution of India: Article 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Communication Treating Suspension Period as Such for Retired Judicial Officer — Punishment Modified Without Authority Under Karnataka Civil Services Rules. The court held that the disciplinary authority had not passe...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Appellate Order Setting Aside Disqualification of Village Panchayat Member for Encroachment by Father. The court held that the appellate authority erred in ignoring evidence of encroachment and joint...