1 1017 WP 6082-2022.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1017 WRIT PETITION NO. 6082 OF 2022 MADHAV LAXMAN SONKAMBLE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER … Mr. Vikram S. Undre – Advocate for Petitioner Mr. V.S. Badakh – AGP for Respondent No.1, State Mr. A.B. Dhongade – Advocate for Respondent No.2 … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 03.12.2025 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Appeal No.16/2022 as well as the judgment and order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the the learned District Collector, Nanded in Proceedings No.2021/Gra.P.Ni./Appeal C.R.–22, whereby the application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner, who is a villager, filed a complaint against respondent No.2 seeking his disqualification on the ground that the mother of respondent No.2 had encroached upon gairan land. He submits that, the learned Additional 2025:BHC-AUG:34026 2 1017 WP 6082-2022.odt Collector as well as the learned Additional Commissioner have concurrently held that there was no encroachment upon the gairan land and that respondent No.2 is not a family member of the persons who encroached upon the said land. 4. I have gone through the orders passed by the learned Additional Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner. After considering the record placed before them, the authorities recorded a finding that the petitioner failed to prove the alleged relationship by producing cogent material on record. 5. As both the authorities have concurrently recorded findings that respondent No.2 has not encroached upon the gairan land, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Appeal No.16/2022 as well as the judgment and order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the the learned District Collector, Nanded in Proceedings No.2021/Gra.P.Ni./Appeal C.R.–22 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Hence, the petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE Pooja Kale/