Dismissed¶21

Dhammanand Dargaji Ingle v. Shri. Sachin Ashok Ingle and Others

Disqualification of Gram Panchayat Member – Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, S.14(1)(j-3) – encroachment on Government land

Bombay HC20 Apr 2026WP/3234/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gram Panchayat member disqualification; Section 14(1)(j-3) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959; encroachment on Government land; Village Form-8; encroachment by family member of elected representative; Janabai (2018) 18 SCC 196; Section 16(2) appeal before Additional Commissioner; Collector Akola; Article 227 writ petition; no perversity; writ petition dismissed. Neutral citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:6426.

What did the court decide?

No relief; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶21

Dhammanand Dargaji Ingle vs Shri. Sachin Ashok Ingle… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner incurred disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 on account of encroachment on Government land. +2 more

¶13

Court's answer

Village Form-8 revenue records showed the Government as owner and the petitioner's father (property no.390) and mother (property no.515) as occupiers; the Authorities, finding no document of ownership, inferred encroachment on Government land, and the petitioner placed no document even in the petition to contradict that inference — the disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act was rightly ordered.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's contention that the alleged encroachment was by his father or mother and cannot attract his disqualification is not acceptable; relying on Janabai, (2018) 18 SCC 196, encroachment by a family member of an elected representative is sufficient to disqualify the Member of the Gram Panchayat.

¶19

Key takeaways

The petitioner failed to file any document showing that, at the relevant time when the disqualification proceedings were initiated, he was residing separately from his mother and father or that the lands were owned by any of them; the contentions canvassed on his behalf are not acceptable.ratio¶20
The impugned orders do not show any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Disqualification of Gram Panchayat Member — Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, S.14(1)(j-3) — encroachment on Government land — Village Form-8 revenue records showed the Government as owner and the petitioner's father and mother as occupiers of the respective survey numbers; petitioner failed to produce any document showing ownership by his parents or that he resided separately from them — encroachment by a family member of an elected representative is sufficient to disqualify a Gram Panchayat Member, following Janabai, (2018) 18 SCC 196 — Collector's order under S.14(1)(j-3) and Additional Commissioner's appellate order under S.16(2) upheld — no perversity or illegality warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India — writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:6426

¶2

1 WP3234-26.odt

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3234/2026

¶5

(DHAMMANAND DARGAJI INGLE VERSUS SACHIN ASHOK INGLE & OTHERS)

¶6

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

¶7

Shri D.S. Patil, counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

Smt.K.H. Bhondge, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶9

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

¶10

DATE : APRIL 20, 2026

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

The petitioner’s challenge is to the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Collector, Akola under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner under Section 16(2) of the Act thereby upholding the disqualification of the petitioner as Member of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner’s primary contention is that he has not committed any encroachment on Government land and has not incurred any disqualification.

¶13

The issue is as to whether the petitioner has incurred disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act on account of encroachment on Government land. The documents in the nature of Village Form-8 with respect to property bearing no.390 shows the Government’s name as owner and the name of the petitioner’s father Dargaji Sonaji Ingle as occupier. Another Village Form-8 with respect to property bearing no.515 shows the name of Government

¶14

2 WP3234-26.odt

¶15

as owner and the name of the petitioner’s mother Ratnabai Dargaji Ingle as Occupier.

¶16

These documents maintained as revenue records show the encroachment on the Government land by the petitioner’s father and mother. There is no document on record showing that the ownership of these lands is with the petitioner or his father and mother. By considering these documents, the respondent no.3Collector has ordered disqualification of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act which is even upheld by the respondent no.4-Additional Commissioner while deciding the appeal under Section 16(2) of the Act by order dated 02.09.2025. These Authorities have given due consideration to these documents and having found that the petitioner failed to file on record any document to show their ownership on these lands (property nos.389 and 515) inferred that the petitioner has committed encroachment on the Government land. Pertinently, even in this petition, the petitioner has failed to place on record any document to contradict the inferences drawn by the Authorities. The respondent nos.3 and 4 have recorded pertinent reasons in their orders which shows due consideration of the relevant aspects.

¶17

The petitioner’s contention that the alleged encroachment on Government land is not done by the petitioner and the encroachment, if any, by his father or mother cannot attract disqualification is not acceptable in view of the judgment of the

¶18

3 WP3234-26.odt

¶19

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Janabai Versus Additional Commissioner & Others [ (2018) 18 SCC 196 ] in which, it is held that the encroachment by a family member of an elected representative is sufficient to disqualify the Member of the Gram Panchayat.

¶20

It has to be noted that the petitioner has failed to file on record any document to show that at the relevant time when the disqualification proceedings were initiated, he was residing separately from his mother and father or that the lands were owned by any of them. As such, the contentions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner are not acceptable.

¶21

The impugned orders do not show any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶22

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶23

APTE

¶24

Signed by: Apte Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 27/04/2026 10:41:31

Dhammanand Dargaji Ingle v. Shri. Sachin Ashok Ingle and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhammanand Dargaji Ingle v. Shri. Sachin Ashok Ingle 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sudhir S/O Tejpratap Singh vs Dinesh S/O. Ramjivan Singh and Another

Swapnil S/O Suresh Patil vs Sub Divisional Officer, Karanja Lad, Washim and Others

Dhanraj S/O Ramdas Palwe vs the Regional Provisional Fund Commissioner, Akola and Another

Jayprakash N. Borker vs the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Another

The Director (Technical), Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur and Another vs Appellate Authority and Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur and Ors.

Alok Madhukar Ghate vs Swati Sudhakar Bawane