SAGAR PANDURANG DHUNDARE versus KESHAV AABA PATIL AND OTHERS

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 13 · Decided: 13-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017) ll S.C.R. 13 
SAGAR PANDURANG DHUNDARE 
v. 
KESHAV AABA PATIL AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2306-2307 of2017) 
NOVEMBER 13, 2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958: 
A 
B 
ss.14(1)()-3), 53(1), (2) and (2A) - Disqualification of 
encroacher on Government land or public property - From becoming 
C 
or continuing as member of Panchayat -
Whether such 
disqualification ·is limited to the actual encroacher or is extended to 
the family member of encroacherlbeneficiwy of encroachment -
Held: The person who has encroached upon the Government or 
public property, for the.purpose of disqualification, can only be 
the person, who has aclllally, for the first time made the encroachme/lf 
D 
- Such disqualification would not be extended to the family member 
of the encroacher - Jn the Act, wherever the legislature intended to 
specifY family, it has done so - Family has not been specified in 
s.14(/)(j-3) - However, in view of s. 53(1) member who has been 
punished for encroachment, shall be dismissed - Member against · E 
whom there is final order of eviction uls.53(2) or (2A) is also not 
entitled to continue as member of Panchayat. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Legislative intent - Ascertainment of - Held: Court can 
interpret a provision so as to achieve the legislative intent when it is 
absolutely necessary and where the intention is clear but the wordv 
used are eiiher inadequate or ambiguous - If there is no statutory 
expression of the intention, Court cannot supply wordr for the sake 
of achieving the intention of the law-maker - The Court in the 
process of interpretation cannot lay down what is desirable in its 
opinion, iffl-om the words used, the legislative intention is othenvise 
discernible. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD:l. Under the statutory scheme, an encroacher is 
liable to be evicted by the Panchayat and if the Panchayat fails, 
13 
F 
G 
H 
14 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 11 S.C.R. 
the Collector has to take action. The encroacher is also liable to 
be prosecuted. Encroachment is certainly to be condemned, the 
encroacher evicted and punished. Desirably, there should not be 
a member in the Panchayat with conflicting interest. But once a 
person is elected by the people, he can be unseated only in the 
manner provided under law. Even with the best of intention, if 
there is no statutory expression of the intention, the court cannot 
supply words for the sake of achieving the alleged intention of 
the law maker. It is entirely within the realm of the law-maker to 
express clearly what they intend. No doubt, there is a limited 
extent to which the court can interpret a provision so as to achieve 
the legislative intent. That is in a situation where such an 
interpretation is permissible, otherwise feasible, when it is 
absolutely necessary, and where the intention is clear but the 
words used are either inadequate or ambiguous. That is not the 
situation here. In the Act, wherever the law-makers wanted to 
specify family, they have done so. When the intent of the 
legislature was to disqualify a member for the act of his family, it 
has specifically done so. 
The Court, in the process of 
interpretation, cannot lay down what is desirable in its own 
opinion, if from the words used, the legislative intention is 
otherwise discernible. [Para 11][25-G-H; 26-A-D] 
Abhiram Singh v. CD. Commachen (D) By Lrs. and 
others (2017) 2 SCC 629 : [2017[ 1 SCR 158: Hori 
Ram v. Jyoti Prasad and anorher (2011) 2 SCC 682 : 
[2011] I SCR 1076 - distinguished. 
2. The duty of the court is not to lay down what is desirable 
in its own opinion. Its duty is to state what is discernible from the 
expressions used in the statute. The court can also traverse to 
an extent to see what is decipherable but not to the extent of 
laying down something desirable according to the court if the 
legislative intent is otherwise not discernible. What is desirable 
is the jurisdiction of the law-maker and only what is discernible 
is that of the court. (Para 141127-CJ 
3. From the Statements of Objects and Reasons for the 
amendment introduced in 2006, it is seen that the purpose was 
"to disqua/ifY the person who has e11croached 11po11 the Government 
/a11d or public property, from becoming member of the Pa11chayat 
SAGAR PANDURANG DHUNDARE v. KESHAV AABA PATIL 
15 
AND OTHERS 
or to continue t1s such". The person, who has encroached upon 
A 
the Gove

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