Allowed¶40

Kavita Pradip Mahajan v. the Additional Commissioner Nashik and Others

Bombay HC14 Nov 2025WP/10396/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sarpanch/Member disqualification; Section 14(j-3) Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act 1959; encroachment on government land; conflicting Tahasildar report (13/12/2024) and BDO report (28/04/2025); summary inquiry standard for disqualifying elected representatives; reliance on Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (2012) 4 SCC 407; writ petition allowed; Collector and Additional Commissioner orders quashed; reinstatement of petitioner as Sarpanch; Bombay HC Aurangabad Bench; W.P. No. 10396/2025; 2025:BHC-AUG:31351-DB; Jalgaon; Kurhad Khurd.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the orders of the District Collector, Jalgaon dated 18/06/2025 and the Additional Commissioner, Nashik dated 07/08/2025 quashed and set aside; petitioner reinstated on the elected post of Sarpanch. ¶40

Kavita Pradip Mahajan Vs the Additional Commissioner Nashik and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner incurred disqualification under Section 14(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 from the posts of Sarpanch and Member of Grampanchayat Kurhad Khurd on account of alleged encroachment on government land by her husband. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Neither the Additional Commissioner nor the Collector recorded any observation or finding that the additional/excess construction is upon government land.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Where two reports on the alleged encroachment are before the authorities, they ought not to have given preference to one report over the other; the report beneficial to the petitioner ought to have been taken into consideration, more so since the alleged encroachment is of a minor nature.

¶31

Key takeaways

The respondents failed to prove that the petitioner has encroached upon the government land; consequently the orders of both authorities were quashed and set aside.ratio¶39
The petitioner's ownership of land admeasuring 94.48 sq.mtrs cannot be discarded; the BDO report dated 28/04/2025 records that she owns land equivalent to 1017 sq.ft, pays tax on it, and that the construction is in terms of the permission granted.ratio¶36
Disqualification of elected Members is a very serious matter; in a summary inquiry an elected Member should not ordinarily be disqualified without clear evidence of encroachment on Government land.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Arun R. Pedneker, J.; reserved 03/09/2025, pronounced 14/11/2025), Writ Petition No. 10396 of 2025 — Disqualification of an elected Sarpanch/Member of Grampanchayat Kurhad Khurd, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon under Section 14(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 for alleged encroachment on government land. Acting on the Tahasildar's report dated 13/12/2024 (panchnama 14/10/2024), the District Collector (order dated 18/06/2025, Grampanchayat Dispute No. 28/2024) disqualified the petitioner, and the Additional Commissioner, Nashik (order dated 07/08/2025, Gram Panchayat Appeal No. 95/2025) dismissed her appeal, rejecting the subsequent BDO report dated 28/04/2025 which recorded that the petitioner owned properties Nos. 53, 54, 55 totalling 94.48 sq.mtrs (about 1017 sq.ft), that tax was being paid, and that the construction was as per village panchayat permission. Held: (i) disqualification of elected members is a serious matter and, in a summary inquiry, an elected member should not ordinarily be disqualified without clear evidence of encroachment on government land, relying on Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad, (2012) 4 SCC 407; (ii) with two inconsistent reports, the authorities ought not to prefer one over the other and should consider the report beneficial to the petitioner, particularly as the alleged encroachment (alleged staircase/passage, said to total 16.5 sq.mtrs against ownership of 94.48 sq.mtrs) was of a minor nature; (iii) no finding was recorded by either authority that the additional/excess construction stood on government land. The orders of both authorities were quashed and set aside, failure to prove encroachment was recorded, and the petitioner was reinstated as Sarpanch. Neutral citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:31351-DB.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:31351-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 10396 OF 2025

¶4

KAVITA PRADIP MAHAJAN VERSUS

¶5

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER NASHIK AND OTHERS

¶6

Mr. Mangesh G. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. K. N. Lokhande, AGP for Respondent/State Mr. Paresh B. Patil (Borse), Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶7

CORAM : : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

¶8

RESERVED ON : 03/09/2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 14/11/2025

¶9

ORDER :-

¶10

Heard. With consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

¶11

By the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 18/06/2025 passed by the District Collector, Jalgaon in Grampanchayat Dispute No. 28/2024 and the order dated 07/08/2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Gram Panchayat Appeal No. 95/2025 disqualifying the petitioner as a Sarpanch as well as a Member of the Grampanchayat Kurhad Khurd, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon under

¶12

1 of 7

¶13

wp10396.25.odt

¶14

Section 14(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) for having committed an encroachment upon the government land.

¶15

Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are summarised as under :-

¶16

. The petitioner was elected as a Member of the Grampanchayat in Kurhad Khurd, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon and thereafter elected as a Sarpanch from January, 2023. The respondent No.4 filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 14(j-3) of the Act before the District Collector contending that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Pradip Dinkar Mahajan is the owner and possessor of house bearing C.T.S. No. 565 having area of 69.70 Sq.Mtr but there is additional encroachment of 20 Sq.ft. from the front side and the back side and the encroachment is on the government land and hence the petitioner would incur disqualification under Section 14(j-3) of the Act from the post of Sarpanch and Member of the village Panchayat and accordingly, prayed for disqualification of the Petitioner.

¶17

The contention of the complainant was denied by the

¶18

2 of 7

¶19

wp10396.25.odt

¶20

petitioner. The petitioner filed reply contending that he has not committed encroachment on the government land. The Collector thereafter called for a report from the Tahasildar and Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti. In pursuance thereto a panchnama was made on 14/10/2024 and report was submitted to the Collector by the Tahasildar on 13/12/2024.

¶21

On the report being submitted by the Tahasildar dated 13/12/2024 that the petitioner has made encroachment, the petitioner had filed objection to the report before the Collector. As such a fresh report was called by the Collector from the Block Development Officer which was submitted on 28/04/2025. This report particularly points out that the petitioner is a owner of property Nos. 53, 54, 55 and the construction is on the area of the petitioner and there is no construction on the government land. The Collector thereafter considering the report dated 13/12/2024 disqualified the petitioner under Section 14(j-3) of the Act for having made encroachment. Appeal filed against the order of Collector before the Additional Commissioner was also dismissed. Thus, the petitioner challenges in the present Writ Petition the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner disqualifying the

3 of 7

wp10396.25.odt

petitioner.

The contention of the petitioner is that the husband of petitioner has made a construction on the land owned by him and not on a government land. It was a specific case of the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner is owner of three properties Nos.53, 54, 55 having an area of 14.12 sq.mtrs, 44.59 sq.mtrs and 35.77 sq.mtrs respectively with total area of 94.48 sq.mtrs. Petitioner has also filed record of Namuna No.8 of village panchayat of the property to show the area of these properties and that the construction is as per the permission granted by village panchayat. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4/complainant submits that there is concurrent finding recorded by the authorities that the petitioner’s husband has encroached upon the government land.

¶26

Having considered the rival arguments and the material produced and on perusal of the order passed by the authorities it is apparent that the petitioner is disqualified in terms of the report submitted on 13/12/2024 by the Tahasildar. The Additional Commissioner in the impugned order has specifically observed thus

4 of 7

wp10396.25.odt

under:-

^^rlsp lkeusokyk dz-1 ;kauh lquok.kh njE;ku iqUgk xV fodkl vf/kdkjh ;kapk vfrdze.kkckcr vgoky ekxfo.;kr ;kok- R;kuqlkj fn- 28@04@2025 jksth vgokykuqlkj fookfnr feGdr {ks=koj cka/kdke dsY;kps funsZ’kuyk ;srs- vls uewn dsys vlwu eh xV fodkl vf/kdkjh ;kaps oj uewn nksUgh vgokykps voyksdu dsys vlrk izFke vgoky fn11@12@2024 e/;s lkeusokyk dz-1 ;kauh vfrdze.k dsY;kckcr uewn vlqu nql&;k vgokykr fookfnr feGdr {ks=koj cka/kdke dsY;kps funsZ’kuyk ;srs vls uewn dsys vkgsOnhrh;@ Qsj lnj vgoky eks?ke Lo;ikpk vlwu fopkjkFkZ ?ksrk ;sow 'kdr ukgh-**

¶31

On the perusal of the order of the Additional Commissioner it is apparent that the Additional Commissioner has relied upon the earlier report of 2024 by the Tahasildar and declined to accept the subsequent report dated 28/04/2025. This Court is of the view that the Authorities ought not to have given preference to one of the report over the another and the report beneficial to the petitioner ought to have been taken into consideration more so since the alleged encroachment is of a minor nature. It can be seen from the photographs placed on record that there is a construction made on the plot which is owned by the petitioner’s husband. The ground floor is at an elevated position and such there is a stair case of five steps leading to the ground floor. This alleged stair case and the passage above is stated to be

¶32

5 of 7

¶33

wp10396.25.odt

¶34

an encroachment. Total encroachment is alleged to be of 16.5 sq.mtrs. The authorities have proceeded on the basis that the petitioner owns 69.70 sq.mtrs of land although the second report of BDO mentions the land of petitioner as 94.48 sq.mtrs.

¶35

The disqualification of the elected Members is a serious matter as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Versus District Collector, Raigad and others, (2012) 4 SCC 407 . In a summary inquiry the elected Member should not be ordinarily disqualified without there being clear evidence of encroachment on Government land.

¶36

So also, it is to be seen that the petitioner ownership of land of 94.48 sq.mtrs cannot be discarded and the report of the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Pachora dated 28/04/2025 points out that the petitioner owns the land of 94.48 sq.mtrs i.e. equivalent to 1017 sq.fts and that the petitioner is paying tax on the same and the construction is in terms of the permission granted. This Court is of the view that the disqualification of an elected Member is a very serious matter and that on the face of two reports which are inconsistent with one and

¶37

6 of 7

¶38

wp10396.25.odt

¶39

other, the Authorities ought not have relied upon in the one report and discarded the subsequent report called by the Collector. There is no observation by the Additional Commissioner that such a additional construction is upon the government land. There is no finding rendering that the excess construction is upon the government land. Considering both these aspect that there is a rejection of the subsequent report without any reason, so also that there is no finding rendering that the excess construction is on government land, the orders passed by both the authorities are quashed and set aside and it is further observed that the Respondents have failed to prove that the petitioner has encroached upon the government land.

¶40

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the petitioner is reinstated on the elected post of Sarpanch.

¶41

(ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.)

¶42

ssp

¶43

7 of 7

¶44

wp10396.25.odt

Kavita Pradip Mahajan v. the Additional Commissioner Nashik and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavita Pradip Mahajan v. the Additional Commissioner Nashik and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sainath Dagadu Jadhav Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Vijaykumar Narayanrao Pujari Vs the General Manager Nanded District Central Co. Op Bank and Another

Phad Kamalbai Phulchand Alias Karad Balaji Kamalbai and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Suryakant Sangamnath Bhalke Vs Monika Suryakant Bhalke Alias Monika Shivshankar Kapse

The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Aurangabad Vs M/S R L Steels Ltd. and Ors.

Kamalbai Waman Dahiphale and Others Vs Kachru Pandurang Ware and Others