Bombay High Court
AZARUDDIN BALASO PENDHARIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS LD. ADDITIONAL DIV. COMMISSINER AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
A Gram Panchayat member is disqualified under Section 14(1)(j‑3) when a family member, such as a brother, encroaches on government land, as the member shares the encroached property and thus has a conflict of interest.
Summary
The petitioner, a duly elected member of the Mudshingi Gram Panchayat, challenged his disqualification on the ground that only he, not his family, had encroached on government land. A complaint under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, filed by a rival Panchayat member, alleged that the petitioner’s brother occupied the land, leading to the petitioner’s disqualification. The petitioner appealed the Collector’s order and the Additional Divisional Commissioner’s dismissal of that appeal, claiming the encroachment allegation was false and motivated. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Janabai v. Additional Commissioner (2018), held that the term “person” in Section 14(1)(j‑3) includes family members who occupy the encroached land, and such occupation creates a conflict of interest warranting disqualification. Consequently, the Court found the lower authorities’ orders lawful and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- What is the scope of "person" under Section 14(1)(j‑3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 with respect to disqualification for encroachment?
- Does the encroachment of a Gram Panchayat member’s family member, specifically a brother, constitute grounds for disqualification of the member?
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 — s. 14, 53
Subjects
- disqualification
- encroachment
- Gram Panchayat
- Section 14
- Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
- family member liability
- purposive interpretation
Judgment
74-927-WP-984-2026 (C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 984 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 507 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 984 OF 2026
Azaruddin Balaso Pendhari
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
Through Its Ld. Additional Div. Commissioner And Others
...
Mr. Manoj Patil a/w Ms. Kalyani Mangave, Advocate for
Petitioner/Applicant.
Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP for the Respondents-State.
...
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 18th APRIL, 2026.
P. C. :
1. The petitioner has raised an exception to order dated
23.09.2025 in Appeal No. Grap/Apeal/Ko/57/2025 rendered by
the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune/
Respondent No.1 dismissing the appeal and endorsing the order
dated 28.05.2025 in application No.80 of 2023 rendered by the
Collector, Kolhapur/Respondent No.2.
Digitally
signed by
SAJAKALI
SAJAKALI LIYAKAT
LIYAKAT JAMADAR
JAMADAR Date:
2026.05.04
12:10:19
+0530
Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 4
74-927-WP-984-2026 (C).doc
2. The petitioner is a duly elected member of the
Grampanchayat, Mudshingi in the year 2022. The Respondent No.4
– Sharad filed a Complaint No.80 of 2023 under Section 14 of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (“Act of 1959”) before the
District Collector/Respondent No.2 contending that the Petitioner
had encroached a Government land and was therefore liable to be
disqualified from post.
3. Consequently, the complaint came to be allowed and
accordingly, the Petitioner was disqualified from the post. Aggrieved
by the same, the Petitioner presented an appeal before Respondent
No.1 - Additional Divisional Commissioner, came to be dismissed by
the order under challenge. As such the Petitioner is before this
Court.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the orders
under challenge are unsustainable in law. The Petitioner nor his
family members have encroached upon the gairan land in question.
The complaint is filed with ulterior motive by the Respondent No.4.
Hence, prayed to quash and set aside the orders under challenge.
5. Learned AGP for the State and the counsel for the Respondent
No.4 have supported the orders under challenge and stated that the
Sajakali Jamadar 2 of 4
74-927-WP-984-2026 (C).doc
brother of the Petitioner resides on the gairan land. As such, being
the family member of the Petitioner, entails his disqualification.
6. To buttress the contention have placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Janabai v.
Additional Commissioner and Others (2018) 18 SCC 196.
7. Having heard the submissions from the respective sides and
upon perusal of the record indicates that it is an admitted fact that
the land in question is occupied by the brother of the Petitioner. The
authorities below have also inspected and prepared a spot
panchanama to that effect. Thus, it is a matter of record that the
brother of the Petitioner had encroached upon the gairan land.
8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Janabai (supra) has
observed as follows :
“30. We may note here with profit that the 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.
The legislative intendment, as we perceive, is that
encroachment or unauthorized occupation has to viewed very
strictly and Section 53, therefore, provides for imposition of
daily fine. It is also to be borne in mind that it is the Panchayat
that has been conferred with the power to remove the
encroachment. It is the statutory obligation on the part of the
Panchayat to protect the interest of the properties belonging to
it. If a member remains in occupation of an encroached
property, he/she has a conflict of interest. If an interpretation
is placed that it is the first encroacher or the encroachment
Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 4
74-927-WP-984-2026 (C).doc
made by the person alone who would suffer a disqualification,
it would lead to an absurdity. 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. Such an
interpretation subserves the real warrant of the provision. Thus
analysed, we are of the view that the decision in Sagar
Pandurang Dhundare v. Keshav Aaba Patil and others 1 does
not lay down the correct position of law and it is, accordingly,
overruled.”
9. In that view of the matter, once the encroachment is
established by a person related to the duly elected member of the
Gram Panchayat, vis-a-vis brother of the Petitioner and having
regard to the object of the statutory provisions, the authorities have
rightly considered the issue in its letter and spirit.
10. Resultantly, the Petition is devoid of merit and stands
dismissed. No order as to costs.
11. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the pending
interim application, if any, also stands disposed of.
[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.]
1 (2018) 1 SCC 340
Sajakali Jamadar 4 of 4
Checking your session…