Ashwini Arvind Shirgave Vs Divisional Commissioner (Bombay High Court)
Conclusion: Receipts for property tax assessment did not necessarily indicate ownership rights to the property. Moreover, there was no encroachment by assessee or assessee’s husband and there existed no record of continued occupation of the property and the allegations had been levied by the brother of the assessee’s father in law who had made a concerted effort to ensure that assessee did not continue as the Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat.
Held: Assessee was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. The respondent No 3, Ramchandra, lodged a complaint with gram panchayat with a contention that the Plot No.14 allotted to Ramchandra with execution of Panchama. The respondent had been paying taxes, despite that assessee’s husband’s name, Arvind Shirgave was inserted for the assessment year (AY) 2008-09. Also the assessment property No.1798- D appeared to have been prepared in the name of Arvind Kuber Shirgave and assessment in respect of Property bearing No.1798-B was shown to be prepared in the name of Arvind Shirgave , for which written explanations with respect to how two different assessments was prepared for one person. The notice was issued by the Collector and the parties were called for hearing. A survey map was prepared for the same. Assessee contended that the complaint filed by Respondent No.3 had not stated about the boundaries of Plot No 14 and there was no clarity as to from which side the encroachment was alleged to be carried out. It was also mentioned that in the application by Respondent No.3 was not government land but additional gavthan land and that the information about wrong assessment by gram panchayat came to the knowledge of assessee’s husband in the month of November 2020 and immediately thereafter an application was moved for deleting the name of the assessee’s husband from the assessment. But due to covid-19 pandemic, the application remained pending and on 30th June 2022 the assessment was canceled, and the name of assessee’s husband was deleted and the husband’s name was not mentioned in encroachment list of year 2000-2020. The allegation of the respondent was of encroachment by assessee’s husband upon the plot allotted to him. The government land which had been allotted to the Respondent No 3, the character of the land changed being in hands of private person and encroachment, if any, must be removed by adopting appropriate civil remedy. It was pointed out that tax receipts was issued in the name of assessee and her husband, which couldn’t be done as the assessment extract was only in the name of assessee’s husband. Therefore it was proved that the submitted tax receipts were forged ones, and was fabricated for showing the assessee’s husband’s occupation of property. The collector held that assessee’s family’s name was noted since the year 1998 when assessee’s husband was a minor. Assessee’s father-in-law was earlier the encroacher and thereafter the encroachment continued. The authorities had failed to recognize the fabricated document inserting the assessee’s husband’s name. The Divisional Commissioner had factually erred in holding that assessee had accepted that Plot No.1805-D is in her possession which had been throughout disputed by assessee stating that they had no connection with 1805-D. It was held that the Collector, without taking into consideration the documents produced on record which showed clear dispute as regards the Property 1805-D and the evident interpolation in the assessment records for the year 2008-2012 showing the name of assessee’s husband in respect of Property 1798-D demonstrating no connect of assessee’s husband with the alleged Property No.1805-D, had ordered the disqualification. What was required to be considered was whether there was material on record to demonstrate that there had been an actual possession and occupation of Property 1805-D by assessee’s husband which was an encroachment on government land. There could not be any finding as regards the encroachment by assessee or the family members. The records did not show that assessee was in continued occupation of the Property stated to be an encroachment on government land. In the assessment extracts of said Property No 1805-D, the name of assessee’s husband was evidently inserted subsequently. A clearcut case must be made out that the Property bearing No.1805-D was an encroachment on Survey No.444, which encroachment had been at the hands of the assessee’s family members and which continued to be in the enjoyment of assessee. From the material which had come on record, no such case being made out. It was indeed unfortunate that the allegations had been levied by the brother of the assessee’s father in law, who instead of appreciating the accomplishment of the assessee, had made a concerted effort to ensure that assessee did not continue as the Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat.
