Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court disposed of four writ petitions challenging orders of the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, which dismissed appeals against the District Collector's order disqualifying the petitioners as members of Gram Panchayat Khanota, Taluka Daund, District Pune under Section 14(j3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 for encroaching on government land. The petitioners, Hanumant P. Pawar, Shalan R. Kanerkar, Mansingh R. Mahurkar, and Ashok M. Gaikwad, were found to have encroached on government land from as early as 1972. The District Collector passed the disqualification order on 15 June 2011, and the Additional Commissioner dismissed their appeals on 19 December 2011. The petitioners argued that since the encroachment was old, the only remedy available to the respondents was to file an election petition under Section 15 of the Act, and proceedings under Section 16 were not maintainable. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surinder Singh Banolta and a Single Judge judgment in Shrikrishna Wasudeo Dhage v. Shivcharan Trimbakrao Kaine & Others. The respondents countered that the disqualification under Section 14(j3) is a continuing disqualification, and thus proceedings under Section 16 are maintainable regardless of when the encroachment occurred. The court, after hearing arguments, held that the disqualification under Section 14(j3) is a continuing disqualification, and therefore the proceedings under Section 16 were maintainable. The court dismissed all the writ petitions, upholding the disqualification orders.
Headnote
A) Panchayati Raj - Disqualification of Members - Encroachment on Government Land - Section 14(j3) Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - Continuing Disqualification - The court considered whether proceedings under Section 14(j3) for disqualification due to encroachment are maintainable even if the encroachment is old. Held that disqualification under Section 14(j3) is a continuing disqualification and proceedings under Section 16 are maintainable, and election petition under Section 15 is not the only remedy. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether proceedings under Section 14(j3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 for disqualification of a member on ground of encroachment on government land are maintainable when the encroachment is old, or whether the only remedy is an election petition under Section 15 of the Act.
Final Decision
All writ petitions dismissed. The orders of disqualification passed by the District Collector and upheld by the Additional Commissioner are confirmed.
Law Points
- Disqualification under Section 14(j3) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act
- 1958 is a continuing disqualification
- Election petition under Section 15 is not the only remedy
- Proceedings under Section 16 are maintainable for disqualification due to encroachment
Case Details
Writ Petition No.585 of 2012, Writ Petition No.586 of 2012, Writ Petition No.587 of 2012, Writ Petition No.589 of 2012
Mr. Idris Vohra (for Petitioner), Mr. R. M. Patne (AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3), Mr. Prathmesh Bhargude (for Respondent No.4)
Hanumant P. Pawar, Shalan R. Kanerkar, Mansingh R. Mahurkar, Ashok M. Gaikwad
The State of Maharashtra & Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging orders of disqualification of members of Gram Panchayat for encroachment on government land.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the orders of the District Collector and Additional Commissioner disqualifying them as members of Gram Panchayat.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were disqualified under Section 14(j3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 for encroaching on government land, and their appeals were dismissed.
Previous Decisions
District Collector, Pune passed order on 15 June 2011 holding petitioners disqualified. Additional Commissioner, Pune Division dismissed appeals on 19 December 2011.
Issues
Whether proceedings under Section 14(j3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 for disqualification on ground of encroachment are maintainable when the encroachment is old, or whether the only remedy is an election petition under Section 15.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that since encroachment was old (from 1972 onwards), the only remedy was an election petition under Section 15, and proceedings under Section 16 were not maintainable.
Respondents argued that disqualification under Section 14(j3) is a continuing disqualification, so proceedings under Section 16 are maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
Disqualification under Section 14(j3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 for encroachment on government land is a continuing disqualification. Therefore, proceedings under Section 16 of the Act are maintainable even if the encroachment is old, and an election petition under Section 15 is not the only remedy.
Judgment Excerpts
In all these cases, proceeding under Section 14 (j3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 were initiated against Petitioners on the ground that they have encroached on government land and are thus disqualified and cannot continue to be members of Gram Panchayat of Khanota, Taluka Daund, District Pune.
Mr. Vohra submitted that assuming without admitting that since encroachment is made, since the encroachment is found to have been made several years ago i.e. from the year 1972 onwards on different dates, filing of the Election Petition under Section 15 of the said Act was the only remedy available to the Respondents and proceedings under Section 16 could not have been filed.
Procedural History
District Collector, Pune passed order on 15 June 2011 disqualifying petitioners under Section 14(j3) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. Petitioners appealed under Section 16(2) to Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, who dismissed appeals on 19 December 2011. Petitioners then filed writ petitions in Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958: Section 14(j3), Section 15, Section 16, Section 16(2)
