Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-AUG:6581
wp-15579-2025 judg.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.15579 OF 2025
Avinash Jagdish Gavit,
Age-33 years, Occ. Sarpanch,
R/o- Khandbara,
Tq. Navapur, Dist. Nandurbar. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Madam Kama Road,
Mumbai.
2. The Additional Commissioner,
Nashik, Division Nashik.
3. The Collector, Nandurbar,
Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar.
4. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zillah Parishad Nandurbar,
Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar.
5. Sub-Divisional Engineer,
PWD Zillah Parishad Nandurbar,
Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar.
6. Village Development Officer,
Grampanchayat Khandbara,
Tq.Navapur, Dist.Nandurbar,
7. Kailash Shankar Gavit,
Grampanchayat Khandbara,
Tq.Navapur, Dist. Nandurbar. ..Respondents
…
Mr. V.D. Salunke i/b Mr. D.A. Madake, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. K.B. Jadhavar, AGP for Respondent/State.
Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate
for Respondent No.7.
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 09, 2026
Mujaheed//
wp-15579-2025 judg.odt
(2)
JUDGMENT :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
with consent of parties.
2. Present writ petition takes exception to judgment and
order dated 15.12.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner, Nashik
in Grampanchayat Appeal No.148 of 2025, thereby upholding
judgment and order dated 10.10.2025 passed by District Collector,
Nandurbar in Grampanchayat Dispute No.3/2025 and 4/2025.
3. The petitioner came to be directly elected from S.T.
Category as Sarpanch of Grampanchayat, Khandbara, Taluka Navapur,
District, Nandurbar. The dispute seeking his disqualification under
Section 14 (1) (J-3) of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, was raised
in Grampanchayat Dispute No.3/2025 and 4/2025. On complaint
filed by respondent no.7. The District Collector declared that
petitioner to be disqualified. The aggrieved petitioner filed appeal
before Additional Commissioner, who dismissed appeal upholding
order of disqualification. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Mr. V.D. Salunke, learning advocate appearing for
petitioner would submit that order of disqualification is passed on the
basis of report submitted by B.D.O. Panchayat Samiti, Nandurbar,
alleging that petitioner and his family members unauthorizedly
encroached upon property belonging to Panchayat Samiti. The
petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to defend his interest.
Mujaheed//
wp-15579-2025 judg.odt
(3)
Mr. Salunke would further submit that petitioner's grandfather was in
service as Gramsevak. He was allotted office quarters constructed over
government land, Gat No.4, Sarvodaya Colony. After death of
grandfather, petitioner's father Jagdish Rama Gavit continued to
reside on rent. In this backdrop, it cannot be said that petitioner's
father encroached upon government land. Mr. Salunke would further
submit that, petitioner was residing separately in House No.703 and
704, which is their private property. Petitioner has neither encroached
upon government land nor is he enjoying encroached property as
alleged. In support of his contention, he relies upon observations of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Manisha Ravindra Panpatil Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC
2690 and observations of this Court in case of Sunil Dinkar Jagdale
Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR Online 2020 Bom 3041.
5. Per contra, Mr. Kathneshwarkar, learned senior advocate,
appearing for respondent no.7 vehemently submitted that petitioner
could not place on record any document to show that his grandfather
was allotted government quarters or his father is paying rent for
occupation of said property. The petitioner was served with notice to
remove encroachment. The learned District Collector as well as
Additional Commissioner concurrently observed that petitioner's
nomination form itself depicts his address as Sarvodaya Colony,
Khandbara. The copy of ration card is also placed on record wherein
Mujaheed//
wp-15579-2025 judg.odt
(4)
name of petitioner's father and his family members are included. All
of them are shown residents of Sarvodaya Colony, Khandbara. The
petitioner could not rebut aforesaid evidences. Hence, by applying
principle of preponderance of probability, concurrent findings
recorded by concerned authorities need not be disturbed. In support
of his contention, he relies upon observations of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in case of Janabai Vs. Additional Commissioner and
others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 196 and observations of this Court
in case of Sonali Gajanan Dhepe and another Vs. The Additional
Divisional Commissioner and others in Writ Petition No.4758 of 2022
decided on 21.02.2023.
6. Having considered submissions advanced by learned
advocates appearing for respective parties, undisputedly, the
petitioner has been directly elected as Sarpanch of Grampanchayat,
Khandbara for the period from 2022 to 2027. Respondent no.7 filed
grampanchayat dispute alleging petitioner's disqualification in terms
of Section 14 (1) (J-3) of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act. In
short, it is alleged that petitioner’s family is residing in house
constructed over government property, which is part of Sarvodaya
Colony, Gat No.4. It is not in dispute that Grampanchayat Property
No.460 and 461 is shown in possession and occupation of Jagdish
Rama Gavit i.e. father of petitioner. Petitioner in his reply took two
fold defence. Firstly, he contends that his grandfather was allotted
Mujaheed//
wp-15579-2025 judg.odt
(5)
government quarters, his father continued in the same property by
paying rent for the same. Secondly, he contend that since last 6 years,
petitioner is separately residing along with his grandmother in their
private property i.e. House No.703 and 704.
7. Apparently, the aforesaid defence would show that there
is no denial on part of petitioner that his father is occupying property
bearing no.460 and 461 which is part of Gat No.4 at Village
Khandbara. It is also not in dispute that said property was in use for
residential purpose of employees on establishment of Zilla Parishad
and Panchayat Samiti during period from 1962 to 1972. There is no
dispute that recently, some construction has been raised by persons in
occupation of property and they are enjoying the possession. In light
of aforesaid admitted facts and defence put-forth by petitioner, it is to
be ascertained “whether occupation of petitioner's father over
government property is legal”, and secondly, “whether petitioner is
beneficiary of area in occupation of his father”.
8. The inquiry report submitted by B.D.O., Panchayat
Samiti, Nandurbar, depicts that persons who are occupying
government property, in Gat No.4 are unauthorized occupiers and
they have raised construction on their expenses. Petitioner’s father has
also raised unauthorized construction and unauthorizedly occupied
Property No.460 and 461. The petitioner has not filed on record any
document to show that his grandfather was legally put into possession
Mujaheed//
wp-15579-2025 judg.odt
(6)
of said property, or his father continued authorized possession.
Although petitioner contended in his reply that his father is paying
rent or construction is made by Zilla Parishad, the same is not
supported by iota of evidence.
9. In light of aforesaid factual position, concurrent findings
recorded by District Collector and Additional Commissioner that
occupation of petitioner's father is unauthorized, and further
construction of house is encroachment on government land cannot be
faulted.
10. The second limb of petitioner's contention that he is not
residing in government property along with his father since last 5 to 6
years, however, learned District Collector has rightly relied upon
contents of nomination form submitted by petitioner, wherein he has
specifically shown his residence address as “Sarvodaya Colony,
Khandbara” i.e. government land. Apart from that, a copy of ration
card in the name of petitioner's father shows that petitioner is one of
the family member residing at Sarvodaya Colony. It is therefore
evident that petitioner continued to occupy and enjoy the encroached
property along with his family members.
11. This Court, in case of Raju Mansaram Pawar and Another
Vs. Additional Divisional Commissioner and others reported in 2020
(3), Mh.L.J. 110 relying upon observations of Division Bench of this
Court in case of Devidas Matiramji Surwade Vs. Additional
Mujaheed//
wp-15579-2025 judg.odt
(7)
Commissioner, Amravati and others reported in 2012, B.C.I. (soft)
944 observed that word “person” referred in section 14(1) would
include legal heirs of encroacher who continue to occupy the
government land or government property. As such, if a person
continues to remain in occupation of the encroached property and has
a conflict of interest, the interpretation that the first encroacher or
encroachment made by a person alone would suffer disqualification,
would lead to an absurdity.
12. The concept of purposive interpretation of the provisions
of the law would constrain the Court to hold that if a person shares
the encroached property and continues to enjoy the encroached
property, the disqualification would also cover such person. The
aforesaid analogy has been approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in case t of Janabai (supra), wherein it is observed that word
"person" as used in Section 14(1)(J-3) is not to be so narrowly
construed as a consequence of which the basic issue of
"encroachment" in the context of disqualification becomes absolutely
redundant. It is however observed that the concept of purposive
interpretation would impel us to hold that when a person shares an
encroached property by residing there and there is continuance,
he/she has to be treated as disqualified. Recently, in case of Sonali
Gajanan Dhepe (Supra), this Court elaborately considered law laid
Mujaheed//
wp-15579-2025 judg.odt
(8)
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Janabai
(supra) and finally observed as under :
“19. This being the majority opinion, we have focussed on the
same. The two-Judge Bench in Sagar Pandurang Dhundare’s case
has distinguished the said decision by holding thus: (SCC p.351,
para 12)
“12. Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (D) By Lrs. is a recent
Constitution Bench judgment of this Court dealing with corrupt
practices. Appeal on the grounds of religion, race, caste,
communtity, language, etc. of the candidates and the electorate,
and canvassing votes accordingly, has been held to be a corrupt
practice. The Court, to hold so, adopted a purposive
interpretative process declaring that the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 should be interpreted in that context to be
electorate centric rather than candidate centric. That is not the
situation in the present case. The appellants were elected by the
people to the Panchayat. There is no case that they are original
encroachers on the public property. And this is not the case where
the alleged act of encroachment has influenced the will of the
people in which case, going by Abhiram Singh (supra), the court
would have been justified in attempting a purposive
interpretation to achieve a laudable object.”
13. In light of aforesaid exposition of law and factual
backdrop of case in hand, this Court finds that petitioner along with
his father resided in Property No.460 and 461 situated at Sarvodaya
Colony, Gat No.4, which is government property and as such, incurred
disqualification in terms of Section 14 (1) (J-3).
14. In result, no case is made out to cause interference in
impugned order. Hence, writ petition stands rejected.
Mujaheed//
wp-15579-2025 judg.odt
(9)
15. Rule is discharged.
(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Mujaheed//