LI Network
Published on: 21 August 2023 at 11:10 IST
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, recently ruled on a writ petition filed by a Sarpanch challenging her disqualification under Section 14 (1) (j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (MVPA).
The Court quashed the disqualification order issued by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, emphasizing that the disqualification should be based on encroachment on government or public land as stipulated by the Act.
The case revolved around a dispute filed against the Petitioner, who was elected as a Gram Panchayat member and subsequently became the Sarpanch.
The dispute alleged that the Petitioner’s house was constructed on government or public land, leading to her disqualification under the MVPA.
The Court highlighted that the critical factor for disqualification under Section 14 (1) (j-3) was the encroachment on government or public land. It stated that not every encroachment or excessive construction should result in disqualification under this provision.
Justice Kishore C. Sant emphasized the seriousness of unseating a public representative and noted the necessity of careful consideration of evidence before passing such an order.
Advocate H.I. Pathan represented the Petitioner, while the Respondents were represented by Additional Government Pleader K.B. Jadhavar, Advocate S.B. Pulkundwar, and Advocate J.M. Kurkute.
The dispute initially led to a Collector’s investigation, which found no evidence of encroachment on government or public land. However, the respondent challenged the Collector’s decision before the Commissioner, who set aside the Collector’s order and disqualified the Petitioner based on excessive construction.
The High Court concluded that the Commissioner should have given more careful consideration to the evidence.
It highlighted that the Deputy Engineer’s report from Zilla Parishad (Construction) specifically stated that no encroachment was found on government or public land.
The Court found no material indicating encroachment on public land and stated that the Commissioner had only considered excessive construction.
As a result, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the disqualification order issued by the Commissioner.