Dismissed

Latabai Vitthal Patil v. the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Div. and Ors.

Bombay HC3 May 2012WP/305/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition by a Gram Panchayat Member challenging disqualification under the Bombay Village Panchayat Act due to alleged encroachment was dismissed. The Court held that no case for interference exists under Article 227 as the authorities effectively considered the regularization proposals and the ownership record.

What the court decided

AI extract

Latabai Vitthal Patil Vs the Additional Divisional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 W.P. 305.2012

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 305 OF 2012

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court’s or Judge’s orders Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. directions and DATE : 03/05/2012. Registrar’s orders

¶6

Mr. V.D.Hon, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.K.Tambe, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. Amol Sawant and Mr. N.N.Desale, Advocates for Resp. No. 3.

¶7

PER COURT :

¶8

The petitioner is elected as a Member of Gram Panchayat, Kasare, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule [ For short, ‘ Gram Panchayat ’ ]. The proceedings U/s 14 ( J ) ( 1 ) of the Bombay Village panchayat Act were initiated for disqualification on the ground that the petitioner has encroached upon the Govt. land. The Additional Collector held that the petitioner is an encroacher and disqualified the petitioner. The petitioner preferred Appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik [ For short, ‘ Additional Commissioner ’ ]. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the Appeal. Aggrieved thereby the

¶9

2 W.P. 305.2012

¶10

present Writ Petition is filed.

¶11

Mr. Hon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not an encroacher. The husband of the petitioner is a serviceman and the plot is allotted to him. According to the learned counsel, even the permission has been granted for the construction of the shopping complex. The Resolution is passed by the Gram Panchayat.

¶12

The learned counsel further submits that the Tahsildar, Sakri, Dist. Dhule [ For short, ‘ Tahsildar ’ ] has also submitted a report that the file is not traceable. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner could not have been disqualified on the said count.

¶13

Mr. Sawant and Mr. Desale, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for State support the order.

¶14

The earlier proposal given by the petitioner for regularization of the said encroachment is rejected by the Collector vide letter dated 31/12/1991. Thereafter, the petitioner, it seems, moved another proposal for regularization. Till today the same has not been sanctioned. Both the authorities have considered this aspect. The

¶15

3 W.P. 305.2012

¶16

shopping complex stands in the name of the petitioner and not the husband of the petitioner as is observed in the order passed by the Collector.

¶17

The authorities have taken into consideration the said aspect of the matter and has rightly dealt with the same.

¶18

In view of the above, no case for interference is made out in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. No costs.

¶20

Needless to state the disqualification exist till the encroachment is regularized.

¶21

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J ]

¶22

KNP/W.P. 305.2012

Latabai Vitthal Patil v. the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Div. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Latabai Vitthal Patil v. the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Div. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Ramrao Bodkhe Vs Sandhu Karbhari Khade (Died) Lrs Tarabai Sandu Khade and Ors.

Narsing Matsya Vyavsaik Sahakari Sanstha, Vanwada Latur Thru Secretary Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Tapi Parisar Vidya Mandal Thr. Its Chairman Vs Dr. Pramod Ghansham Ingle and Anr.

Dattatraya Raghunath Kokadwar Vs Pankaj Kamalkishor Maliwal and Ors.

Mumtaz Ali Mohammed Hussain and Ors. Vs Gulam Rasul Dadamiya, Died Thr. L.Rs. Zainoddin and Ors.

The Returning Officer for Zp and Ps Election Vs Sanjiwani @ Sanjay Shivaji Rathod and Ors.