Ram Bapu Jethe vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Dept and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ram Bapu Jethe vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Dept and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.6, a democratically elected member of the Gram Panchayat, incurred disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 on the ground of encroachment on Government land by him or his father. +1 more

Court's answer

The alleged additional construction carried out by Respondent No.6 during reconstruction of the house cannot be confused with the ground of encroachment on Government land under Section 14(1)(j) of the Act; the Additional Divisional Commissioner had considered the grant of Government aid for construction of the house to Respondent No.6's father and the 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the Gram Panchayat, and had declined to record a concrete finding of encroachment.

Ratio / Principle

As of now there is no concrete material that Respondent No.6 or his father have indulged in encroachment on Government land so as to incur disqualification under section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act; the Petitioner has failed to produce any concrete material for drawal of inference of encroachment by Respondent No.6 on the Government land.

Key takeaways

A democratically elected member of the Gram Panchayat cannot be unseated in a casual manner in absence of concrete material on record about encroachment on Government land by him or his family members.ratio¶18
Disqualification of Respondent No.6 cannot be ordered merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures on the basis of the complaint of the Petitioner, who unsuccessfully contested the election and took the route under section 14(1)(j) of the Act to unseat a democratically elected member.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Sandeep V. Marne, J.; decision dated 11 February 2025) dismissed Writ Petition No. 17346 of 2024 filed by Dr. Ram Bapu Jethe challenging the order dated 14 October 2024 of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, which allowed the appeal of Respondent No.4 and set aside the Collector, Solapur's order dated 29 July 2024 disqualifying Respondent No.6 from membership of the Gram Panchayat under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 on the ground of encroachment on Government land. Held: (i) the additional construction allegedly carried out by Respondent No.6 during reconstruction of the house cannot be confused with the ground of encroachment under Section 14(1)(j); the grant of Government aid for construction of the house to Respondent No.6's father and the 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the Gram Panchayat led the Additional Divisional Commissioner to refuse to record a concrete finding of encroachment; (ii) there was no concrete material that Respondent No.6 or his father had indulged in encroachment on Government land so as to incur disqualification under section 14(1)(j-3), and the Petitioner had failed to produce any concrete material for such inference; (iii) a democratically elected member of the Gram Panchayat cannot be unseated in a casual manner, nor on surmises and conjectures, on the complaint of an unsuccessful election contestant; the observations of the Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad, (2012) 3 SCR 775, were held apposite. Notice had been served on Respondent No.6, who chose not to appear. Writ petition dismissed without any order as to costs.

18 wp 17346-24-c.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.17346 OF 2024

Dr. Ram Bapu Jethe … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ... Respondents

Mr. Sachin M. Bhavar , Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. J. P. Patil , AGP for the State.

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Dated : 11 February, 2025.

P.C. :

The Petition challenges order dated 14^th October, 2024 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division allowing the appeal preferred by Respondent No.4 and setting aside order dated 29^th July, 2024 passed by Collector, Solapur. The Collector had disqualified Respondent No.6 from being member of Gram Panchayat under provisions of Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner setting aside the disqualification order passed by the Collector.

I have heard Mr. Bhavar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Patil, learned AGP appearing for the State.

Digitally signed byPRIYA PRIYARAJESHSOPARKAR RAJESHSOPARKARDate: 2025.02.14 10:32:29 +0530

Page No. 1 of 3

Priya Soparkar

18 wp 17346-24-c.doc

Notice of Petition is served on Respondent No.6, who has chosen not to appear before the Court.

Perusal of the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner would indicate that she has taken into consideration a report showing grant of Government aid for construction of house to the father of Respondent No.6. The Additional Divisional Commissioner has also taken into consideration ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued by the Gram Panchayat for construction of house by the father of Respondent No.6. Based on these factors, the Additional Divisional Commissioner has refused to record a concrete finding of encroachment on Government land by the father of Respondent No.6. The other aspect is about additional construction allegedly carried out by Respondent No.6 during the process of reconstruction of the house. In my view, this cannot be confused with the ground of encroachment on Government land under Section 14(1)(j) of the Act. As of now, there is no concrete material available for the purposes of interfering that Respondent No.6 or his father have indulged in encroachment on the Government land so as to incur disqualification under section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act. Respondent No.6 is democratically elected member of the Gram Panchayat and he cannot be unseated in a casual manner in absence of any concrete material available on record about encroachment on the Government land by him or his family members. In this regard, observations made by the Apex Court in judgment in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and ors.¹ are apposite. Petitioner has failed to produce any concrete material for drawal of inference of encroachment by Respondent No.6 on the Government land.

1 (2012)3 SCR 775

Page No. 2 of 3

Priya Soparkar

18 wp 17346-24-c.doc

Disqualification of Respondent No.6 cannot be ordered merely on the basis of surmises and conjunctions on the basis of the complaint of the Petitioner who unsuccessfully contested election and has preferred to take a route under section 14(1)(j) of the Act for unseating democratically elected member.

I therefore do not find any valid ground to interfere in the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner.

Writ Petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

Page No. 3 of 3

Priya Soparkar