Supreme Court clarifies Encroachment Disqualification under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act: Sagar Pandurang Dhundare vs. Keshav Aaba Patil (2017)

Citation: (2017) INSC 977. The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered by a bench of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi, tackled a critical question regarding disqualification of Panchayat members due to encroachment on government land. The core issue was whether the disqualification extends to family members of the original encroacher, or if it is limited to the person who initially encroached. This case is significant for its interpretation of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, and its implications for local governance.

Case Background

The appellants in this case were elected members of a Panchayat. Allegations were made that their father or grandfather had encroached upon government land. The contesting respondents argued that the appellants, being beneficiaries of this encroachment, should also be considered encroachers and thus disqualified from holding office. The appellants, however, contended that they were not the original encroachers and therefore should not be disqualified. The core dispute centered on the interpretation of the term “encroacher” under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The case reached the Supreme Court after a series of conflicting decisions by the High Court of Bombay. Some High Court decisions held that only the person who initially encroached could be disqualified, while others held that family members benefiting from the encroachment could also be disqualified. The Supreme Court was tasked with resolving this conflict and clarifying the correct interpretation of the relevant provision in the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958.

Legal Framework

The central legal provision in this case is Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, which states:

“14. Disqualifications .-(1) No person shall be a member of a Panchayat, or continue as such, who—… (j-3) has encroached upon the Government land or public property; or …”

The court also considered Section 53 of the Act, which deals with obstructions and encroachments upon public streets and open sites. This section empowers the Panchayat to remove encroachments and prosecute encroachers. Specifically, Section 53(1), (2), and (2A) were examined.

The court noted that the legislature had specifically included family members in disqualification provisions in other sections of the Act, such as Explanation 2 for Section 14(1)(h), which deals with failure to pay taxes. This indicated that the absence of such specific mention in Section 14(1)(j-3) was intentional.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that they were not the original encroachers. They contended that the disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, applies only to the person who initially encroached.
• They emphasized that the Act does not explicitly mention family members of the encroacher as being subject to disqualification.
• They relied on the High Court decisions in Ganesh Arun Chavan v. State of Maharashtra and others, Yallubai Kamble v. State of Maharashtra and others, and Kanchan Shivaji Atigre v. Mahadev Baban Ranjagane and others, which supported the view that the disqualification applies only to the person who commits the act of encroachment.
• The appellants highlighted that wherever the legislature intended to include family members for disqualification, it has specifically done so, as seen in Explanation 2 of Section 14(1)(h).

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the term “encroacher” should be interpreted broadly to include not only the original encroacher but also their legal heirs and beneficiaries.
• They contended that allowing family members of encroachers to hold office would defeat the purpose of the Act, which is to prevent conflict of interest.
• They relied on the High Court decisions in Devidas s/o Matiramji Surwade v. Additional Commissioner, Amravati and others, Parvatabai @ Shobha d/o Kisan Kande v. Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and others, and Sandip Ganpatrao Bhadade v. Additional Commissioner, Amravati and others, which held that the term “person” in the amended provision includes legal heirs of the encroacher.
• The respondents argued that an encroacher is liable to be evicted by the Panchayat under Section 53 of the Act and it would be detrimental to the object of the statute if a member of the Panchayat is himself an encroacher.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the central issue as:

1. Whether a family member of the original encroacher can be disqualified under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Cited by the Court:

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958: Disqualification for encroachment.
• Section 53 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958: Obstructions and encroachments upon public streets and open sites.
• Section 53(1), (2), and (2A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958: Procedures for dealing with encroachments.
• Explanation 2 of Section 14(1)(h) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958: Disqualification for failure to pay taxes by a member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Supreme Court followed the High Court decisions in Ganesh Arun Chavan v. State of Maharashtra and others 2013 (2) Mh. L.J. 955, Yallubai Kamble v. State of Maharashtra and others, and Kanchan Shivaji Atigre v. Mahadev Baban Ranjagane and others 2013(1) Mh. L.J. 455 which held that the disqualification applies only to the person who commits the act of encroachment.
• The Supreme Court overruled the High Court decisions in Devidas s/o Matiramji Surwade v. Additional Commissioner, Amravati and others 2017 (1) Mh. L.J.102, Parvatabai @ Shobha d/o Kisan Kande v. Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and others 2015 (5) Mh. L.J. 238, and Sandip Ganpatrao Bhadade v. Additional Commissioner, Amravati and others 2017 (1) Mh.L.J.79 which held that the term “person” in the amended provision includes legal heirs of the encroacher.
• The Supreme Court distinguished the cases of Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (D) By Lrs. and others (2017) 2 SCC 629 and Hari Ram v. Jyoti Prasad and another (2011) 2 SCC 682 stating that they were not relevant to the issue at hand.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by a strict interpretation of the language used in Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The Court emphasized that the legislature had specifically included family members in disqualification provisions in other sections of the Act, indicating that the absence of such specific mention in Section 14(1)(j-3) was intentional. The Court also noted that it is not the role of the court to supply words for the sake of achieving the alleged intention of the law maker if there is no statutory expression of the intention. The Court also clarified that if a member has been punished for encroachment under Section 53(1) or if there is a final order of eviction under Section 53(2) or (2A), then that member shall be unseated.

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the argument that the term “encroacher” should be interpreted broadly to include legal heirs and beneficiaries, stating that such an interpretation would amount to judicial overreach. The court also clarified that if a member has been punished for encroachment under Section 53(1) or if there is a final order of eviction under Section 53(2) or (2A), then that member shall be unseated.

The court stated, “The person, who has encroached upon the Government land or public property, as the law now stands, for the purpose of disqualification, can only be the person, who has actually, for the first time, made the encroachment.”

The court further stated, “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.”

The court also stated, “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.”

Key Takeaways

• The disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, applies only to the person who initially encroached on government land or public property.
• Family members of the original encroacher are not automatically disqualified unless they themselves are the original encroachers.
• If a member has been punished for encroachment under Section 53(1) or if there is a final order of eviction under Section 53(2) or (2A), then that member shall be unseated.
• The court emphasized the importance of strict interpretation of statutes and that the courts cannot add words to a statute to achieve a desired outcome.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and disposed of the appeals. The court clarified that if the appellants suffer from any of the three situations indicated above, i.e., if they are the original encroachers, if they have been punished for encroachment under Section 53(1) or if there is a final order of eviction under Section 53(2) or (2A), then that member shall be unseated.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, applies only to the person who has actually, for the first time, made the encroachment and not to their family members. This judgment overturns the previous position taken by some benches of the Bombay High Court, which had held that the term “person” includes legal heirs and beneficiaries of the encroacher. The Supreme Court emphasized a strict interpretation of the statute and the principle that courts cannot add words to a statute to achieve a desired outcome.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court clarified that the disqualification for encroachment under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, applies only to the original encroacher and not to their family members unless they are themselves the original encroachers. This judgment provides much-needed clarity on the interpretation of Section 14(1)(j-3) and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues. The Court also clarified that if a member has been punished for encroachment under Section 53(1) or if there is a final order of eviction under Section 53(2) or (2A), then that member shall be unseated.

Category

• Election Law
  • Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958
  • Section 14(1)(j-3), Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958
  • Encroachment Disqualification
  • Local Body Elections
  • Panchayat Member Disqualification
• Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958
  • Section 14(1)(j-3), Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958

FAQ

Q: Who is considered an “encroacher” under this judgment?

A: According to this judgment, an “encroacher” is the person who initially encroached upon government land or public property. Family members of the original encroacher are not considered encroachers unless they themselves were the ones who initially encroached.

Q: Can a Panchayat member be disqualified if their family member is an encroacher?

A: No, a Panchayat member cannot be disqualified solely because their family member is an encroacher. The disqualification applies only to the person who initially made the encroachment. However, if the member has been punished for encroachment under Section 53(1) or if there is a final order of eviction under Section 53(2) or (2A), then that member shall be unseated.

Q: What if the Panchayat member is living on the encroached land?

A: The judgment clarifies that only the original encroacher is disqualified under Section 14(1)(j-3). However, if the member has been punished for encroachment under Section 53(1) or if there is a final order of eviction under Section 53(2) or (2A), then that member shall be unseated.

Q: What does this judgment mean for future Panchayat elections?

A: This judgment provides clarity on who can be disqualified for encroachment, ensuring that only the actual encroachers are penalized. It also highlights the importance of strict interpretation of statutes and that the courts cannot add words to a statute to achieve a desired outcome.