Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 alleging that the petitioner stood disqualified to continue to be the member of the Grampanchayat for having failed to pay the taxes within the period of three months from the date of demand of tax by the Grampanchayat and for having committed encroachment on the Government land.

¶25

The respondent No.2 - Collector by order dated 16.5.2023 has allowed the application filed by the respondent No.4. By the order impugned respondent No.1 has confirmed the said order passed by respondent No.2.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

As regards the ground in relation to the alleged encroachment on the Government land, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, documents were placed on record to show that one Dilip Ramdhan Pawar is the owner of the said property and not the petitioner or her husband. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has not at all considered the said documents. As regards the ground in relation to non-payment of property tax, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a specific plea was raised before respondent No.2 in relation to non-compliance of procedure contemplated under

2/4

Dinesh S. Sherla

10-cwp-2680-24.doc

Government Resolution dated 06/04/1996, however, respondent No.2 has not recorded any finding on the said plea. It is submitted that the orders impugned, therefore, can not be allowed to stand.

¶32

On the other hand, the learned counsel for contesting respondent submits that document at page-32 of the petition filed by the petitioner to rebut the ground of encroachment is not genuine document. As regards the Government Resolution dated 06/04/1996, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent submits that the same would not apply to the facts of present case.

¶33

I have perused the impugned orders. The finding in relation to alleged encroachment is cryptic. There is no finding in relation to the documents filed by the petitioner to rebut the said ground of encroachment. Similarly, there is no finding in relation to Government Resolution dated 06/04/1996.

¶34

The matter, therefore, will have to be remanded back to respondent No.2. The orders impugned are set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 for deciding it afresh. The respondent No.2 shall endeavour to decide the matter within three months from the date of receipt of copy of

3/4

Dinesh S. Sherla

10-cwp-2680-24.doc

this order.

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending Application(s), if any, are disposed of.

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)

4/4

Dinesh S. Sherla

Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 18/07/2024 19:48:23

Smt. Nanda Gajanan Pawar v. the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

What the court decided

Smt. Nanda Gajanan Pawar v. the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Krishna Baban Lokhande vs State of Maharashtra

Mahendra Ravindra @Ravi Shelar vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Avinash Agrawal vs Ritu Agrawal

Basantlal Budhiram Bind vs State of Maharashtra

Shirish S/O Ravi Bagde vs Smt. Farha W/O Shirish Bagde, Farhat D/O Tanvir Abdul Rashid Sheikh (Maiden Name)

Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. Thr.Its in-Charge C.E.O., Amravati vs Pundalik Shankar Dakre