JANABAI versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 11 S.C.R. 699 · Decided: 19-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
699
                  JANABAI
v.
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 6832 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958:
s.14(1)(j-3) and 53 – Disqualification under s. 14(1)(j-3) –
Whether attracted, when encroachment is by the husband and
father-in-law of the candidate and not by the candidate herself –
Held: Legislative intent of s. 14(1)(j-3) is that encroachment has to
be viewed very strictly – The word ‘person’ in s.14(1)(j-3) should
not be construed narrowly – Therefore, when the candidate shares
an encroached property and there is continuance, he/she has to be
treated as disqualified – Interpretation of Statutes – Purposive
Interpretation – Legislative Intendment.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. On a schematic appreciation of the Maharashtra
Village Panchayat Act, 1958, including Sections 10, 11 and 53
thereof, it is quite vivid that the Members elected in Panchayat
are duty bound to see to it that the obstruction or encroachment
upon any land, which is not a private property but Government
land or a public property, should be removed and prosecution
should be levied against the person creating such obstruction or
encroachment. [Para 27] [717-D-E]
2. The word ‘person’ as used in Section 14(1)(j-3) of the
Act 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 is that
encroachment or unauthorized occupation has to be viewed very
strictly and Section 53, therefore, provides for imposition of daily
fine. It is the Panchayat that has been conferred with the power
to remove the encroachment. It is the statutory obligation on the
[2018] 11  S.C.R. 699
699
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
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 made by the person alone who would suffer a
disqualification, it would lead to an absurdity. Giving purposive
interpretation, it is held 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. [Para 29] [718-H; 719-A-D]
Sagar Pandurang Dhundare v. Keshav Aaba Patil and
others (2018) 1 SCC 340 – overruled.
Devidas Surwade v. Commissioner, Amravati 2012 SCC
OnLine Bom 2126 – stood affirmed.
Parvatabai v. Commissioner, Nagpur 2015 SCC OnLine
Bom 
6141; 
Sandip 
Ganpatrao 
Bhadade 
v.
Commissioner, Amravati 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 8991;
Anita Laxman Junghare v. Commr., Amravati 2017 SCC
OnLine Bom 9102 – approved.
Ganesh Arun Chavan v. State of Maharashtra 2012
SCC OnLine Bom 1393; Kanchan Shivaji Atigre v.
Mahadev Baban Ranjagane 2012 SCC OnLine Bom
1537; Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017) 2 SCC
629 : [2017] 1 SCR 158; Jagdev Singh Sidhanti v.
Pratap Singh Daulta [1964] 6 SCR 750; Hari Ram v.
Jyoti Prasad and another (2011) 2 SCC 682 : [2011] 1
 SCR 1076; Sankar Dastidar v. Banjula Dastidar
(2006) 13 SCC 470 : [2006] 10  Suppl. SCR 101 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2018) 1 SCC 340
   overruled
Para 5
2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1393   referred to
Para 6
2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1537   referred to
Para 8
2012 SCC OnLine Bom 2126   stood affirmed
Para 9
2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6141   approved
Para 10
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
701
2016 SCC OnLine Bom 8991
approved
Para 12
2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9102
approved
Para 13
[2017] 1 SCR 158
referred to
Para 15
[1964] 6 SCR 750
referred to
Para 15
[2011] 1 SCR 1076
referred to
Para 20
[2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 101
referred to
Para 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6832
of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated  03.05.2017 of the High
Court of  Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition
No. 2742 of 2016
Hrishikesh Chitaley, M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co., Nishant
Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DIPAK MISRA, CJI 1. The singular question that emanates
for consideration in this appeal is whether the forums below as well as
the High Court is justified in disqualifying the appellant for continuing as
a member of the Gram Panchayat Kalamba (Mahal

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.