Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sou. Kanchan Shivaji Atigre, was elected as a member of Gram Panchayat Padwalwadi from Ward No.3 reserved for women (general) on 27 June 2010 and later elected unopposed as Sarpanch. Respondent No.1, Mahadev Baban Ranjagane, filed a complaint before the Additional Collector, Kolhapur, alleging that the petitioner was disqualified under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 because she and her husband, Shivaji Atigre, had encroached upon government land (Gat No.47, gairaan land) by constructing a structure (House No.264). The assessment record showed the government as owner and the petitioner and her husband as occupants. The petitioner denied the allegations, claiming the complaint was vexatious. The Additional Collector dismissed the complaint, holding that the encroachment was by predecessors and family members, not the petitioner personally. However, the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, allowed the appeal and disqualified the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined the record and found that the assessment record for 2010-2011 showed the petitioner's name in the possession column, indicating her possession of the encroached property. The court held that Section 14(1)(j-3) disqualifies any person who has encroached upon government land or public property, and the term 'encroachment' includes possession of such land. The court noted that the petitioner's name was in the possession column, and the subsequent change to her brother-in-law's name was an afterthought. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the disqualification.
Headnote
A) Gram Panchayat - Disqualification - Section 14(1)(j-3) Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 - Encroachment on Government Land - The petitioner, a member of Gram Panchayat, was disqualified because her husband's family had constructed a structure on government 'gairaan' land and her name appeared in the possession column of the assessment record. The court held that the petitioner's possession of the encroached property, even if through family, attracts disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) as the provision does not require personal encroachment but includes possession of encroached property. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is disqualified under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 for encroaching upon government land or public property.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Additional Commissioner disqualifying the petitioner under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958.
Law Points
- Disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act
- 1958
- Encroachment on government land
- Possession as disqualifying factor
- Vicarious liability for family encroachment
Case Details
Writ Petition No.8722 of 2012
Mr. Abhijit M. Adagule for the petitioner, Mr. Shrikant Yadav for respondent No.1, Ms. P.S. Cardozo, A.G.P for respondent Nos.3 and 4
Sou. Kanchan Shivaji Atigre
Mahadev Baban Ranjagane & Ors
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner disqualifying the petitioner as a member of Gram Panchayat.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order of the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, which disqualified her under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was disqualified by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that she had encroached upon government land (gairaan land) by constructing a structure, and her name appeared in the possession column of the assessment record.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Collector, Kolhapur, by order dated 25 October 2011, dismissed the complaint against the petitioner, holding that the encroachment was by predecessors and family members, not the petitioner personally. The Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, by order dated 2011 in Gram Panchayat Appeal/Kolhapur/185 of 2011, allowed the appeal and disqualified the petitioner.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is disqualified under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 for encroaching upon government land or public property.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that she had not personally encroached upon any government land; the structure was built by her husband's family predecessors, and she was not in possession.
The respondent No.1 argued that the assessment record showed the petitioner's name in the possession column, indicating her encroachment, and she had paid house tax, thus she was disqualified.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 disqualifies any person who has encroached upon government land or public property. The term 'encroachment' includes possession of such land. The assessment record showing the petitioner's name in the possession column is sufficient to establish encroachment, and the subsequent change of name to her brother-in-law does not absolve her. The disqualification is incurred regardless of whether the encroachment was by the petitioner personally or by her family members, as long as she is in possession.
Judgment Excerpts
The Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune while allowing the appeal has held that the petitioner is disqualified under section 14(1)(j3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958.
This is a disqualification incurred on account of encroachment made upon government land or public property.
The assessment record shows that for the assessment year 20102011, the Property bearing No.264 was assessed in the name of Shivaji Bapu Atigre and the petitioner and their names were entered in the possession column whereas the name of Government of Maharashtra was shown in the ownership column.
Procedural History
The respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the Additional Collector, Kolhapur, on 4 February 2011, alleging disqualification of the petitioner. The Additional Collector dismissed the complaint on 25 October 2011. The respondent No.1 appealed to the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, who allowed the appeal and disqualified the petitioner. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 12 October 2012.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958: Section 14(1)(j-3)
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
