Sambhaji Bhaginath Londhe v. The Additional Divisional Commissioner And Others
2025:BHC-AUG:29094 1 103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 103 WRIT PETITION NO. 12653 OF 2025 SAMBHAJI BHAGINATH LONDHE
VERSUS
THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS ...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Harshal Prakash Randhir AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. P. D. Patil ...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 13.10.2025 PER COURT:
1.
Heard.
2.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the complainant. He filed the complaint against the elected member of the grampanchayat i.e. respondent no.4 that he has encroached upon the government property and, as such, should be disqualified within the provisions of Section 14(J-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. On the complaint being filed before the District Collector, notice was issued to respondent no.4 and the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer was also called and considering the report, the Collector dismissed the complaint. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik. The same is under Section 16(2) of the Maharashtra
2 103 Village Panchayat Act. The same is also dismissed and, accordingly, the present writ petition is filed.
3.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice of encroachment was given by the authorities to the father of the respondent no.4 and that the respondent no.4 and his family are a joint family holding agricultural property on which some construction is done illegally.
4.
The learned counsel submits that thereafter when the notice was issued, the same was recalled by the concerned authority considering the response that there is no construction thereon. It is stated that later another notice was issued on 03.11.2023. It is stated that the said notice is also re-called. 5.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the notice it can be said that respondent no.4's family has encroached upon the government land.
6.
Both the authorities below, however, on considering the material has found that there is no encroachment at the instance of respondent no.4. The finding recorded by the appellate authority in the order dated 02.07.2025, page 64 of the petition, clauses 4 to 6 are relevant and noted below:
3 103 "4.
सामनेवालेनं. 3 अनिलरघुनाथघुलेवत्यांचेवडिलरघुनाथविश्वनाथ घुलेहेएकत्रितकुटुंबातअसूनत्यांचेकुटुंबानेराष्ट्रीयमहामार्ग५२च्याहद्दीतील कि.मी. ४०/ २००मध्येरस्त्याच्याडाव्याबाजुसरस्त्याच्यामध्यापासून ०८००मी.
अंतरावरपक्क्यास्वरुपाचेअतिक्रमणकेलेलेआहे. त्याबाबत सार्वजनिकबांधकामउपविभागगीयशेवगगावयांनीदि. ०१/१२/ २०२०रोजी क्र. ७४३/ २०२०अन्वयेशासकीयजागगेतीलअतिक्रमणदूरकरण्याकरिता सामनेवालेनं. 3 यांचेवडिलांनानोटीसबजावलीहोती.
तथापि दि.
२८/१२/ २०२०रोजीसहाय्यकअभियंतासार्वजनिकबांधकामविभागग, शेवगगांवयांनीसामनेवालेनं.2 यांचेवडीलश्री.
रघुनाथविश्वनाथघुलेयांचे बरोबरपत्रव्यवहारकरूनसदरनोटीसजुजबीचौकशीवरूनदेण्यातआलेली असल्यानेरद्दसमजण्यातयावीअशाआशयाचेपत्रदिलेआहे. 5.
अपीलार्थीयांनीसामनेवालेनं.3 यांनीअथवात्यांचेकुटुंबियांनीअतिक्रमण केलेअसलेचेशावीतकरण्यासाठीअतिक्रमितमिळकतीचाग्रामपंचायतउतारा, अतिक्रमणरजिष्टरचाउतारा, तलाठीयांचेकडील१ईचानमुनारजिष्टरउतारा असेकोणतेहीपुरावेसादरकेलेलेनाही.
6.
अपीलार्थीयांनीसामनेवालेनं.3 अनिलरघुनाथघुलेअथवात्यांचे कुटुंबियांनीग्रामपंचायतीचे/ शासकीयजागगेवरअतिक्रमणकेलेअसल्याचेव अतिक्रमणजागगेचाउपभोगग घेतअसलेबाबतनिर्विवादपणेसिध्दकरूशकले नाहीत.
उपरोक्तविवेचनपाहताजिल्हाधिकारीअहिल्यानगगरयांचेकडील आदेशदि. 30/08/2024 अन्वयेमहाराष्ट्रग्रामपंचायतअधिनियम1959 चे कलम14 (1) (ज-3) नुसारपारितकेलल्याआदेशातहस्तक्षेपकरण्याची आवश्यकतानाही.
यानिष्कर्षाप्रतमीआलेलोआहे.
सबबमीअजयमोरे, अपरविभागगीयआयुक्त, नाशिकविभागग नाशिक खालीलप्रमाणेआदेशदेतआहे."
7.
The appellate authority has noticed that the notice of encroachment is re-called by the PWD department and there is no proof that any encroachment is done as there was no document produced in terms of Namuna 1E indicating encroachment. 8.
Although, the petitioner has contended that respondent no.4 has encroached on the government land, however, there is no material found by the concerned authority, more so, when spot
4 103 inspection conducted no encroachment was found and the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer also indicated no encroachment. 9.
Considering the same and that the finding of the fact recorded that there is no encroachment, this court cannot reexamine the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. No case is made out.
10.
The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] marathe