Dismissed¶40

Mayur Navnath Dighe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC14 Jan 2026WP/15387/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act disqualification; Section 14(1)(J-3) r/w 16(2); Government Gairan land; Gut No.5 village Hasnabad; Gut No.402 Junegaon; Grampanchayat House Nos.639 and 641; Up-Sarpanch; Sangamner; Ahilyanagar; Additional Divisional Commissioner Nashik; Grampanchayat Appeal No.27/2025; Grampanchayat Dispute Case No.09/2024; Leave and License Agreement dated 02.11.2022; Janabai v. Additional Commissioner (2018) 18 SCC 196; writ petition dismissed; rule discharged; Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.

What did the court decide?

Grampanchayat House Nos.639 and 641 are situated in Government land and are unauthorisedly possessed by the petitioner's family members. ¶38

Mayur Navnath Dighe vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner incurred disqualification under Section 14(1)(J-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act on account of occupation of Grampanchayat House Nos.639 and 641 constructed on Government Gairan land, making the orders of the District Collector and the Additional Divisional Commissioner sustainable. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

Grampanchayat House Nos.639 and 641 are situated in Government land and are unauthorisedly possessed by the petitioner's family members.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner produced no document showing title to the said properties in his parents' name, no material depicting the source of such title, and could not demonstrate that the entries in the Grampanchayat record were fallacious or incorrect.

¶34

Key takeaways

The plea that the houses do not form part of Government land was taken for the first time in appeal; on the Additional Divisional Commissioner's requisition, the Deputy Superintendent of Land Record, Sangamner clarified that the properties possessed and standing in the petitioner's parents' name are part of Government land in Gut No.402.ratio¶35
The petitioner's claim of residing in rented premises rests solely on a notarized Leave and License Agreement dated 02.11.2022; no other evidence or supporting affidavit of the licensor was filed before the Appellate Authority, and no explanation was given for not filing his reply before the District Collector.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by an elected member and Up-Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Talegaon Dighe (Taluka Sangamner, District Ahilyanagar) challenging his disqualification under Section 14(1)(J-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, founded on occupation of Grampanchayat House Nos.639 and 641 built on Government Gairan land, dismissed. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik (Grampanchayat Appeal No.27/2025, order dated 20.11.2025) had confirmed the District Collector, Ahilyanagar's order dated 20.01.2025 in Grampanchayat Dispute Case No.09/2024, which relied on Janabai v. Additional Commissioner, (2018) 18 SCC 196. The Court held that the houses stand on Government land in Gut No.402 per the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records' measurement, that the petitioner's parents hold no title thereto, and that the petitioner's tenancy plea rests on a lone notarized Leave and License Agreement dated 02.11.2022 without supporting affidavit. Rule discharged.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:7894

¶2

wp-15387-2025.odt

¶3

(1)

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.15387 OF 2025

¶6

MAYUR NAVNATH DIGHE

¶7

Age: 30 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o: Talegaon, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahilyanagar ..Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶10

THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT NASHIK,

¶11

THE COLLECTOR, SANGAMNER Taluka Sangamner, DistrictAhilyanagar.

¶12

GRAM SEVAK, Grampanchayat Talegaon Dighe. At Post. Talegaon Dighe, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahilyanagar.

¶13

ANNASAHEB SOPAN DIGHE, Age: 40 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Talegaon Dighe, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahilyanagar.

¶14

NAMDEO DADA DIGHE,

¶15

Age: 70yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Talegaon Dighe, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahilyanagar. ..Respondents

¶16

...

¶17

Mrs. R. S. Bora h/f Mr. S. S. Bora, Advocates for Petitioner. Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. R. A. Tambe, Advocates for Respondent Nos.5 and 6.

¶18

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 22^nd JANUARY, 2026.

¶19

JUDGMENT:-

¶20

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of

¶21

parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

¶22

wp-15387-2025.odt

¶23

(2)

¶24

The petitioner impugns order dated 20.11.2025 passed by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik in Grampanchayat Appeal No.27/2025, thereby upholding order dated 20.01.2025 passed by District Collector, Ahilyanagar in Grampanchayat Dispute Case No.09/2024, whereby petitioner has been disqualified under Section 14(1)(J-3) of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act (for short ‘MVP Act’) for holding post of member of Village Panchayat, Talegaon Dighe.

¶25

The petitioner has been elected as member of Village Panchayat. In December 2023, petitioner was further elected as Up-Sarpanch. The respondent nos.5 and 6 initiated proceeding under Sections 14(1)(J-3) r/w 16(2) of MVP Act seeking disqualification of petitioner, alleging that petitioner and his family members have encroached upon Government Gairan land bearing Gut No.5. They are residing in Grampanchayat House Nos.639 and 641, constructed on Government Gairan land. As such, petitioner incurred disqualification. The petitioner replied contending that he is not residing in House Nos.639 and 641. He is residing on rent in house of one Dattatraya Dnyaneshwar Dighe. The District Collector upon appreciation of evidence concluded that petitioner is residing in Grampanchayat House Nos.639 and 641 alongwith his parents. As such, relying upon law laid down by Supreme Court of India in case of Janabai Vs. Additional

¶26

wp-15387-2025.odt

¶27

(3)

¶28

Commissioner and Others¹ declared petitioner as disqualified. Aggrieved petitioner filed Appeal before Additional Divisional Commissioner, who concurred with opinion of District Collector and confirmed order of disqualification.

¶29

Mrs. Bora, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner would submit that impugned order is fallacious, as same is based on report of Village Development Officer. Pertinently, said report states that boundaries of Gut No.5 of village Hasnabad are not demarcated, hence, concrete opinion as to encroachment cannot be given. She would further submit that although Additional Divisional Commissioner had issued communication dated 21.04.2025 directing Superintendent of Land Record to carry out measurement of land Gut No.5 and submit his report, Deputy Superintendent of land Record measured Gut No.402 and submitted his report that House Nos.639 and 641 are part of Gut No.402 of Junegaon. The Additional Divisional Commissioner relied upon said report and confirmed order of disqualification.

¶30

Per contra, Mr. Tambe, learned Advocate appearing for respondent nos.5 and 6 and Mr. Jadhavar, learned AGP appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3 supports impugned order stating that petitioner could not substantiate that he is residing in different premises.

1 2018 (18) SCC 196.

wp-15387-2025.odt

(4)

Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, it is not disputed that Grampanchayat House Nos.639 and 641 is possessed and occupied by petitioner’s parents. The Grampanchayat Form No.8 for Assessment Year 2022 to 2026 depicts that both these properties are part of land owned by Maharashtra State. The petitioner has not produced any document showing title of aforesaid properties in name of petitioner’s parents. Even there is no material depicting source of title in name of petitioner’s parents. The petitioner could not demonstrate that entries in Grampanchayat record are fallacious or incorrect. The petitioner did not file his reply on record before District Collector, although he was personally present for hearing on 29.02.2024 and 13.03.2024.

¶35

Apparently, there is no express reply on behalf of petitioner to refute contention in dispute application filed by respondent nos.5 and 6. The petitioner first time took stand in Appeal before Additional Divisional Commissioner that Grampanchayat House Nos.639 and 641 does not form part of Government land. However, Deputy Superintendent of Land Record, Sangamner on requisition of Additional Divisional Commissioner has clarified that properties possessed and standing in name of petitioner’s parents are part of Government land in Gut No.402. The map of Gut No.402 alognwith location of properties possessed by petitioner’s parents

¶36

wp-15387-2025.odt

¶37

(5)

¶38

are made part of record. It is, therefore, apparent that Grampanchayat House Nos.639 and 641 is situated in Government land and unauthorizedly possessed by petitioner’s family members.

¶39

Although before Appellate Authority petitioner sought to rely upon Leave and License Agreement dated 02.11.2022 to contend that one Dattatraya Dighe has rented out house to him and he is residing in that property, except notarized document dated 02.11.2022 no other evidence is placed on record. Even supporting affidavit by Mr. Dighe is not filed on record of Appellate Authority. No explanation is given as to why petitioner could not file his reply before District Collector.

¶40

In that view of matter, there is no substance in Writ Petition. In result, Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶41

Rule stands discharged.

¶42

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE

¶43

Devendra/January-2026

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 20.11.2025 of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik in Grampanchayat Appeal No.27/2025 confirming the petitioner's disqualification under Section 14(1)(J-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, upholding the District Collector's order dated 20.01.2025.¶24
Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik · 20.11.2025
Prior proceeding
District Collector, Ahilyanagar disqualified the petitioner under Section 14(1)(J-3) of the MVP Act by order dated 20.01.2025 in Grampanchayat Dispute Case No.09/2024.¶24
Prior proceeding
Petitioner elected member of Village Panchayat, Talegaon Dighe, and further elected Up-Sarpanch in December 2023.¶25
Prior proceeding
Respondents 5 and 6 initiated a disqualification proceeding under Sections 14(1)(J-3) r/w 16(2) of MVP Act, alleging encroachment on Government Gairan land bearing Gut No.5 and residence in Grampanchayat House Nos.639 and 641.¶25
Prior proceeding
Petitioner replied that he was not residing in House Nos.639 and 641 but on rent in the house of Dattatraya Dnyaneshwar Dighe.¶25
Prior proceeding
District Collector concluded that the petitioner resided in House Nos.639 and 641 with his parents and, relying on Janabai v. Additional Commissioner, declared him disqualified.¶25
Prior proceeding
Petitioner appealed to the Additional Divisional Commissioner, who concurred with the Collector's opinion and confirmed the order of disqualification.¶28
Prior proceeding
Communication dated 21.04.2025 of the Additional Divisional Commissioner directed the Superintendent of Land Records to measure Gut No.5; instead the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records measured Gut No.402 and reported House Nos.639 and 641 as part of Gut No.402 of Junegaon, on which report the Additional Divisional Commissioner relied while confirming the disqualification.¶29
Prior proceeding
Petitioner did not file his reply before the District Collector despite being personally present at hearings on 29.02.2024 and 13.03.2024.¶34

Mayur Navnath Dighe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayur Navnath Dighe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajay Rajkumar Shukla vs Rupchand Bhagchand Kasliwal and Others

Popatlal Mishrilal Kothari Died Thr Lrs Vijay Popatlal Kothari and Others vs Samta Nilesh Katariya and Another

Manik Harichandra Phad vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Sudarshan Shrikrushna Shelke vs the State of Maharashtra Thorugh Its Secretary and Others

Amarjyoti Packers Through its prop Mohd Khaled Hilal Patel vs The Divisional Joint Registrar Cooperative Society Chh Sambhaji nagar

Dnyandev Ashok Gavande vs the State of Maharashtra and Others