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 2025:BHC-AUG:29094 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. सामनेवाले नं. 3 अनिनल रघुनाथ घुले व त्यांचे वडिल रघुनाथ निवश्वनाथ घुले हे एकनित कु टुंबात असून त्यांचे कु टुंबाने राष्ट्रीय महामार्ग! ५२ च्या हद्दीतील निक.मी. ४०/ २०० मध्ये रस्त्याच्या ाव्या बाजुस रस्त्याच्या मध्यापासून ०८०० मी. अंतरावर पक्क्या स्वरुपाचे अडितक्रमण के लेले आहे. त्याबाबत साव!जनिनक बांधकाम उपनिवभार्गीय शेवर्गाव यांनी नि7. ०१/१२/ २०२० रोजी क्र. ७४३/ २०२० अन्वये शासकीय जार्गेतील अडितक्रमण 7ूर करण्याकरिरता सामनेवाले नं. 3 यांचे वडिलांना नोटीस बजावली होती. तथानिप नि7. २८/१२/ २०२० रोजी सहाय्यक अभिभयंता साव!जनिनक बांधकाम निवभार्ग, शेवर्गांव यांनी सामनेवाले नं.2 यांचे वील श्री. रघुनाथ निवश्वनाथ घुले यांचे बरोबर प व्यवहार करून स7र नोटीस जुजबी चौकशीवरून 7ेण्यात आलेली असल्याने रद्द समजण्यात यावी अशा आशयाचे प नि7ले आहे. 5. अपीलाथF यांनी सामनेवाले नं.3 यांनी अथवा त्यांचे कु टुंनिबयांनी अडितक्रमण के ले असलेचे शावीत करण्यासाठी अडितक्रनिमत निमळकतीचा ग्रामपंचायत उतारा, अडितक्रमण रजिजष्टरचा उतारा, तलाठी यांचेकील १- ई चा नमुना रजिजष्टर उतारा असे कोणतेही पुरावे सा7र के लेले नाही. 6. अपीलाथF यांनी सामनेवाले नं.3 अनिनल रघुनाथ घुले अथवा त्यांचे कु टुंनिबयांनी ग्रामपंचायतीचे / शासकीय जार्गेवर अडितक्रमण के ले असल्याचे व अडितक्रमण जार्गेचा उपभोर्ग घेत असले बाबत निनर्विववा7पणे जिसध्7 करू शकले नाहीत. उपरोक्त निववेचन पाहता जिजल्हाडिधकारी अनिहल्यानर्गर यांचे कील आ7ेश नि7. 30/08/2024 अन्वये महाराष्ट्र ग्रामपंचायत अडिधनिनयम 1959 चे कलम 14 (1) (ज-3) नुसार पारिरत के लल्या आ7ेशात हस्तक्षेप करण्याची आवश्यकता नाही. या निनष्कर्षाा!प्रत मी आलेलो आहे. सबब मी अजय मोरे, अपर निवभार्गीय आयुक्त, नाभिशक निवभार्ग नाभिशक खालीलप्रमाणे आ7ेश 7ेत आहे.” 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 re- examine the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. No case is made out. 10. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] marathe