The Supreme Court overruled it’s earlier decision and held that a person who shares any encroached property by residing there and also there is a continuity of stay then he/she has to be disqualified from being a member of the Panchayat. The bench was a three judge bench comprising Chief Justice DipakMisra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud. This was held in Janabai vs. Additional Commissioner.
The law or section 14 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act 1958 states that no person shall be members of a panchayat who had encroached upon the government land or public property. Considering the background of the case Janabai who was elected as a member of the Panchayat was disqualified for continuing as a member of the gram Panchayat on the ground that there had been encroachment upon the government land since 1981 by her father in law and she is using the same land. The high Court disqualified this as well. In a former case of SagarPandurangDhundare the two judge bench headed by Justice Kurian Joseph held that disqualification must not be meted out to family member.
Overruling the judgement in the case of Dhundare the bench held that it is the statutory obligation on the part of the Panchayat to protect the interests of the properties belonging to it.If a member remains in occupation of an encroached property he or she has a conflict of interest. The concept of purposive interpretation would impel us to hold that when a person shares an encroached property by residing there in continuance she or he has to be treated as disqualified.
Courtesy/By: Subhalagna Choudhury
|
24 Sep 2018
