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. 2026:BHC-AUG:46381 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