- Case
- SANTOSH RAMESH WAGHELA AND ORS v. SANTOSH SAKHARAM BHORE AND ORS (Bombay High Court, 14-01-2025)
- Law
- Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, Constitution of India.
Facts: The petitioners challenged an order by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune, which overturned the Collector's order disqualifying Respondent No.1 from acting as Sarpanch of Village Korochi. The disqualification was initially based on allegations that Respondent No.1's mother had constructed a house on government land (gairan land), attracting provisions of Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958. Respondent No.1 defended by claiming his mother constructed the house under the National Rural Employment Programme (NREP) Housing Scheme and that he resided in rented accommodation.
Procedural Posture: The case reached the Bombay High Court via a writ petition filed by the original petitioners, challenging the Additional Divisional Commissioner's order that had set aside the Collector's disqualification order.
Issue: Did the Additional Divisional Commissioner err in setting aside the Collector's order disqualifying Respondent No.1 from the post of Sarpanch, based on allegations of encroachment on government land by Respondent No.1's mother, considering the provisions of Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, and the evidence presented regarding the NREP Housing Scheme?
Holding: No, the Additional Divisional Commissioner did not err. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Additional Divisional Commissioner's order.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that disqualifying a democratically elected member requires concrete evidence of encroachment. While Respondent No.1's mother's house was on government land, evidence suggested it was constructed under the NREP Housing Scheme, intended for landless laborers. The court emphasized that strict adherence to statutory provisions is mandatory when seeking disqualification and that allegations must be proved with concrete material, not mere surmises or conjectures. The court also relied on previous judgments, including Janabai Versus. Additional Commissioner and Others, and Ravi Yashwant Bhoir versus District Collector Raigad and others, which stressed the need for a stringent standard of proof when removing elected officials. The court found that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient concrete evidence to establish encroachment warranting disqualification.
