Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Kantilal Thakare, an elected member of Grampanchayat Akkalkuwa, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad challenging the judgment of the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, dated 12/06/2018, which dismissed his appeal against the District Collector's order dated 23/02/2018. The Collector had dismissed Dispute Application No. 19/2017 filed by the petitioner seeking disqualification of respondent No. 5, Ushabai Pravin Bora, the Sarpanch, under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act on the ground of encroachment. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 5 had constructed a toilet on a public road, thereby encroaching upon public property. Respondent No. 5 contended that the toilet was constructed on her husband's private land, not on public land. The Collector, after considering the evidence, including a report from the Gram Panchayat and a map, concluded that the alleged encroachment was on private land belonging to respondent No. 5's husband, and therefore no disqualification was attracted. The Additional Commissioner affirmed this finding in appeal. The High Court, in its oral judgment delivered by Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge, noted that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence such as a map or panchnama to establish that the toilet was on a public road. The court observed that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court held that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to show encroachment on public property, and since the petitioner did not discharge this burden, the petition was dismissed. The court also noted that the petitioner's reliance on a declaration by respondent No. 5 regarding use of a public toilet was irrelevant to the issue of encroachment. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - Disqualification of Sarpanch - Encroachment - Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act - The petitioner sought disqualification of respondent No. 5 Sarpanch on the ground that she had encroached upon a public road by constructing a toilet. The Collector and the Additional Commissioner concurrently found that the alleged encroachment was on private land belonging to respondent No. 5's husband, not on public property. The High Court upheld these findings, holding that no disqualification arises under Section 14(1)(j-3) for encroachment on private land. (Paras 1-10) B) Panchayat Law - Disqualification of Sarpanch - Burden of Proof - Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act - The burden lies on the petitioner to prove that the alleged encroachment is on public property. In this case, the petitioner failed to produce any evidence such as a map or panchnama to establish that the toilet was on a public road. The concurrent findings of fact by the Collector and the Additional Commissioner were based on evidence and not perverse, hence not interfered with in writ jurisdiction. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondent No. 5, the Sarpanch, is liable to be disqualified under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act for allegedly encroaching upon public property by constructing a toilet on a public road.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the District Collector and the Additional Commissioner. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act requires encroachment on public property
- no disqualification if encroachment is on private land
- burden of proof on petitioner to establish encroachment
- appellate authority's concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in writ jurisdiction
