Partly allowed

Vishwanath Tulaji Sadar v. the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and Others

Bombay HC22 Oct 2024WP/2419/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders disqualifying him as Gram Panchayat Member for alleged encroachment. High Court found no specific findings on encroachment in spot inspection report, held impugned orders unsustainable, and remanded matter to Collector.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed and matter remanded to the Collector to decide afresh.

Vishwanath Tulaji Sadar Vs the Divisional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:14119 1 wp 2419.22.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

Writ Petition No.2419/2022

¶4

(Vishwanath V Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and others)

¶5

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

- - - - Mr. R.D. Dhande, Advocate for petitioner. Ms R. Nitnaware, Advocate for respondent no.3. Ms. P. Joshi, AGP for respondent nos.1, 2 and 6.

¶8

CORAM : N.R. Borkar, J. DATE : 22-10-2024.

¶9

This petition takes exception to the order dated 08-04-2022 passed by respondent No.1- Divisional Commissioner, Amravati in Appeal No.81/MVP, 1959, Section 16(2)/ Chatari-Patur-Akola/2022.

¶10

ii. The petitioner was elected as a Member of Gram Panchayat Chatari, Taluka Patur, District Akola.

¶11

iii. Respondent No.3 herein had filed an application before respondent No.2-the Collector, Akola to disqualify the petitioner from continuing as a Member of the Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 14 (1) (j-3) of the Maharashtra

¶12

Village Panchayats Act, 1958, for having committed encroachment on Government land. By order dated

¶13

2 wp 2419.22.odt

¶14

24-02-2022 the respondent No-2 allowed the said application.

¶15

iv. By the order impugned, respondent No.1 has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of respondent No.2.

¶16

v. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. vi. Respondent No.2 to disqualify the petitioner has relied upon the joint spot inspection report dated 10-12-2021 of the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Chatari and Assistant Engineer (Civil) Panchayat Samitee, Patur. I have perused the said spot inspection report. There is no specific finding in the said spot inspection report in relation to the alleged encroachment. In that view of the matter, the orders impugned cannot be allowed to stand.

¶17

vii. The matter is remanded back to respondent no.2 for deciding it afresh.

¶18

viii. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶19

( N.R. Borkar, J. )

¶20

Deshmukh

Vishwanath Tulaji Sadar v. the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwanath Tulaji Sadar v. the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mohit Industries, Akola Vs the Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Org, Akola

M/S K.M. Asghar Husain College of Education, Akola Thr. Its I/C Principal Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola

Shri. Shailendra S/O. Mohanlal Choudhary Vs Smt. Sangita W/O. Dilip Kukde

Nitin Shantilal Kothari vs Police Inspector City Police Station Phaltan

Reshma Khatun Salim Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Dipak S/O. Laxmandas Hariyani and Others Vs Mustafa S/O. Yusufbhai Bohara