Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sau. Anita Laxman Junghare, was the Sarpanch and a member of Gram Panchayat, Nagapura. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed a complaint alleging that her son, Ganesh @ Omshiv Laxman Junghare, had encroached upon government land (Survey No.131) and illegally set up a shop named Shivshakti Offset Printers for screen printing work. The Additional Collector, Buldana, by order dated 16th August 2016, disqualified the petitioner under Section 14(1)(j3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The petitioner appealed to the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, who dismissed the appeal on 6th January 2017, relying on the Division Bench decision in Devidas vs. Additional Commissioner, 2017(1) Mh.L.J. 102. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The legal issue was whether the term 'person' in Section 14(1)(j3) includes legal representatives of the encroacher. The petitioner argued that the encroachment was by her son, not by her personally, and that the son was a major and not dependent on her. The respondents contended that the term 'person' should be interpreted broadly to include legal representatives. The court, following the ratio in Devidas, held that the term 'person' includes legal representatives, agents, assignees, or transferees of the encroacher. The court noted that the son's encroachment was continuing and the petitioner, as his mother and legal representative, was liable for disqualification. The court also observed that the petitioner did not challenge the finding of encroachment by her son. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the disqualification was upheld.
Headnote
A) Panchayati Raj - Disqualification of Member - Section 14(1)(j3) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - Interpretation of 'person' - The term 'person' includes legal representatives, agents, assignees, or transferees of the encroacher - The petitioner's son encroached on government land and set up a shop; the petitioner as mother and legal representative is liable for disqualification - Held that the disqualification under Section 14(1)(j3) applies to the legal representative of the encroacher who continues to occupy the land (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the term 'person' under Section 14(1)(j3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 includes legal representatives of the encroacher, and whether the petitioner can be disqualified for her son's encroachment on government land.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The orders of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner disqualifying the petitioner under Section 14(1)(j3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 are upheld.
Law Points
- Interpretation of 'person' in Section 14(1)(j3) includes legal representatives
- agents
- assignees
- or transferees
- Disqualification of elected member for encroachment by son
- Continuing encroachment as disqualifying factor
