Janabai vs Additional Commissioner and Others

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

19 September 2018

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 6832 of 2018

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Dipak Misra, D.Y. Chandrachud, A.M. Khanwilkar

Citation

[2018] 11 S.C.R. 699 : 2018 INSC 832

Headnote

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 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.

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 (Mahali) on the ground that there has been encroachment upon the government land since 1981 by her father-in-law and husband and she is using the said land. There are concurrent findings of fact that the father-in-law and the husband of the appellant have encroached upon the government land and despite notice,

View Subscription Plans →