LAXMAN PUNDALIK GAWALIversusTHE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER 2 AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:46381



                                                                   3-WP.15712.2023.odt


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             WRIT PETITION NO.15712 OF 2023

            Laxman s/o. Pundalik Gawali                         ..Petitioner
                 Vs.
            The Additional Divisional Commissioner-2
            Aurangabad and others                               ..Respondents

                                               ----
            Mr.R.V.Gore, Advocate for petitioner
            Mr.S.P.Sonpawale, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
            Mr.V.H.Pathade, Advocate for respondent no.3
            Mr.B.B.Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no.4
                                               ----

                                       CORAM :      AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                       DATE  :      SEPTEMBER 30, 2026

            PER COURT :-

                         In the general elections conducted by the State Election

            Commission in 2020-2021 the petitioner came to be democratically

            elected as Member of Ghatshendra Village Panchayat, Tahsil – Kannad.

            Subsequently he was also elected as Sarpanch of the Village

            Panchayat.      A complaint was filed against the petitioner taking

            recourse to Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats

            Act, 1959 seeking his disqualification on the ground of alleged

            encroachment on the Government/Village Panchayat’s land.             The

            petitioner stood disqualified in the enquiry and thus the Writ Petition

            came to be filed assailing his disqualification.
                                     2                        3-WP.15712.2023



2.          During pendency of this Writ Petition vide order dated

17.04.2024 this court directed the District Collector to rearrange the

panchnama and place on record an affidavit clearly stating as to

whether there is encroachment or not. Consequent to the order, a

panchnama was conducted and an affidavit-in-reply came to be filed

before this court under the name and signature of one Shri.

Vidyacharan   s/o.   Jaganath   Kadavkar,    Tahsildar,    Kannad.        In

paragraphs 10 and 11 of the affidavit, it is contended that the

panchnama was conducted pursuant to the order passed by this

court and it was noticed that the petitioner had not encroached on

the Government or Village Panchayat’s land.               A copy of the

panchnama also placed on record. Suffice it to note that by efflux of

time the tenure of the local body is already over.



3.          The exercise of conducting fresh panchnama under

orders of this court was in the light of the reasons recorded by this

court at paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the order dated 17.04.2024. There

was doubt as to the correctness and legality of the panchnamas on

which the complaint was based.           This Court vide order dated

17.04.2024 while directing fresh panchnama has given finding that :-
                                        3                          3-WP.15712.2023



                   “3.            ………..on a small application the
                   entire Government machinery is put in motion
                   out of political rivalry. In most of the cases when
                   the measurements are done, notices are not
                   issued or the rough sketch maps are prepared.
                   In such matters, the court has to see prima facie
                   evidence. Democratically elected persons have
                   thrown away on the basis of such defective and
                   incomplete inspection report and these reports
                   are purportedly drafter in a way both the parties
                   may interpret it suitably”.



4.          Thus it is apparent that the intention of this court was to

direct the Collector to arrange fresh and clear panchnama so as to

bring the truth on record. From the recitals of the reply filed by Shri.

Vidyacharan s/o. Jaganath Kadavkar, Tahsildar, Kannad, it is clear

that no encroachment at the hands of the petitioner was found. This

court has no reason to discard this reply affidavit filed on behalf of

the District Collector.



5.          Although Mr.Kulkarni, learned advocate for respondent

no.4 relies on certain photographs at page 79, however, solely on

the basis of those photographs it cannot be accepted that the

petitioner was removing any encroachment. Nothing can be defined

from such photographs. In view of this although the term of the local

body has elapsed, however, keeping in mind the law laid down by
                                    4                      3-WP.15712.2023



this court in Satish N. Deshmukh Vs. Additional Commissioner

Pune Division Pune and others, 2018(1) ABR 553 I am

convinced that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.



6.         Hence, The Writ Petition stands allowed in terms of

prayer clause (B).




                                [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
                              ………..


KBP