Mayur Navnath Dighe v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:7894 (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.15387 OF 2025 MAYUR NAVNATH DIGHE Age: 30 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o: Talegaon, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahilyanagar ..Petitioner

Versus

1.

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

2.

THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT NASHIK, 3.

THE COLLECTOR, SANGAMNER Taluka Sangamner, DistrictAhilyanagar.

4.

GRAM SEVAK, Grampanchayat Talegaon Dighe.

At Post. Talegaon Dighe, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahilyanagar.

5.

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

6.

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

..Respondents ...

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. ...

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

DATED : 22nd JANUARY, 2026.

JUDGMENT:- 1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

(2) 2.

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.

3.

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

(3) 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.

4.

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. 5.

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.

2018 (18) SCC 196.

(4) 6.

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.

7.

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

(5) 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. 8.

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.

9.

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

10.

Rule stands discharged.

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/January-2026