Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act Pdf

[Ahmend Studioz]

Palaka journalism graduate believes in simplifying the complicated and writing about the extraordinary lives of ordinary people. She calls herself a " hodophile" or in layman words- a person who loves to travel.

I am a creative, artistic and ambitious designer, with a talent for thinking outside the box and coming up with innovative ideas and designs. I graduated with a 1st Class honors degree in Video Editing from MAYA ACADEMY OF ADVANCED CINEMATICS

A woman who was gang-raped in 2015 has alleged that her village panchayat passed a resolution to banish her, adding, that attempts were made to forcibly drive her out of the place by the locals in Maharashtra's Beed district.

The 30-year-old victim has not just been banished from her village in Gevrai tehsil but has been boycotted by two adjoining villages by passing resolutions, according to an official from the local administration.

The New Indian Express reported that the woman was sexually assaulted five years back while visiting a farm in the village to pluck cotton. However, the four accused were sentenced to life imprisonment earlier this year.

Police officials have said that the woman lodged a complaint against the villagers, accusing them of using abusive language against her. She also alleged that that villagers were threatening her. Meanwhile, the cops have assured that the investigation was underway.

Beed Deputy Superintendent of Police Swapnil Rathod said, "The woman has also filed a complaint against some villagers for allegedly using abusive language against her. On Monday, some villagers approached us saying that we should not entertain her complaint."

The High Court of Bombay: passed a judgement on 06 June 2023. In the case of NIKHIL UTTAM UNDRE Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS THE SECRETARY AND ORS IN WRIT PETITION NO. 12614 OF 2022 which was passed by a single bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR, a village panchayat member from Manjri (Khurd), Tal. Haveli, District Pune found himself facing disqualification under section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. The disqualification was imposed based on allegations of encroachment on government land. The legality, propriety, and correctness of the disqualification were challenged through a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This blog post aims to provide an overview and analysis of the key arguments presented by the parties involved in the case, along with relevant case laws.

The petitioner, who had been elected as a member of the village panchayat in 2001, was accused of encroaching on Gaothan land belonging to the village panchayat. The dispute application was filed by a respondent, alleging that the petitioner and his family members had committed unauthorized construction and encroachment. The District Collector initially dismissed the application, stating that the complainant had failed to prove the encroachment. However, on appeal, the Additional Divisional Commissioner overturned the decision, holding that the petitioner had indeed incurred disqualification.

The Division Bench of the High Court, in the case of Devidas s/o. Matiramji Surwade vs. Additional Commissioner, Amaravati (2003) 2 Mh.L.J. 318, held that disqualification extends to legal heirs, agents, assignees, or transferees of the person who committed the encroachment. The Supreme Court later affirmed this interpretation in the Janabai case.

In this case, the disqualification of the petitioner as a village panchayat member based on allegations of encroachment on government land has been challenged through a writ petition. The arguments put forth by both parties revolve around the sufficiency of evidence and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions. It remains to be seen how the Court will weigh the evidence and apply the law to arrive at a just decision.

Section 3 of Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, and Sections 3,4, and 341A of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 create the following categories of urban areas based on their population.

Section 66A of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 mandates the setting up of wards committees in municipal areas with a population more than 300,000.[3] Thus, Nagar Panchayats, and Type B and C Municipal Councils are automatically relieved of setting up Wards Committees, as well as Type A Municipal Councils with population less than 300,000. More than one ward may constitute one Wards Committee and it is left to the discretion of the municipal body to decide upon the number of such wards.

Section 29A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act mandates the setting up of wards committees in areas with Municipal Corporations.[4] It gives more details about the number of wards committees to be formed according to population size:

Rural governance in India is based on the Panchayati Raj system. It is a three tier system, with the Zilla Parishad at the district level, Taluka panchayat at the Taluka or sub-district level and Grampanchayat (Village Council) at the lowest level. Maharashtra was one of the first states to implement the three tier system under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Acts 1961 of Maharashtra State. That act was amended with Act XXI to bring it in line with 73rd amendment to the Indian constitution in 1994.[10][11]

Zilla Parishad (commonly known as ZP) is a local government body at the district level in India. It looks after the administration of the rural area of the district and its office is located at the district headquarters.

Panchayat samiti is a local government body at the Taluka (sub-district)( level in India. It works for the villages that together are called a Block. The Panchayat Samiti is the link between the Gram Panchayat and Zilla Parishad.

Gram panchayats are local self-government bodies at the village level. They are a cornerstone of the panchayati raj system. A gram panchayat can be set up in villages with a population of more than five hundred. There is a common gram panchayat for two or more villages if the population of these villages is less than five hundred, whereupon it is called a group-gram panchayat. The panchayat members are elected by the voters in the village but seats are reserved for different categories. 33% of the seats are reserved for women. The scheduled castes (SC), scheduled tribes(ST), and other backward classes (OBC) get seats allocated in proportion to their population in the village. The office holder positions (sarpanch and the deputy sarpanch positions) are rotated between different demographics such as women, SC, ST. , general category etc.[12]

Finding that the Petitioner did not have a caste validity certificate, the Bombay High Court held that the Collector has rightly exercised his jurisdiction under section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, disqualifying the petitioner under section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act.

The Bench of Justice Arun R. Pednekar observed that "non-submission of caste validity certificate within time stipulated under section 10-1A of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act leads to termination of election retrospectively and is disqualified for being a member of the Village Panchayat".

Going by the background of the case, the Petitioner belonging to a scheduled tribe, contested general election of Village Panchayat against the post reserved for S.T. Category and got elected for the said post. Since the Petitioner did not have caste validity certificate at the time of nomination, she forwarded the proposal for validation of her caste certificate to the Scrutiny Committee. The Committee however, confiscated the tribe certificate, leaving it open to the Petitioner to get the appropriate caste certificate from the competent authority, but the Petitioner had no knowledge about such order. Meanwhile the earlier term of the Petitioner was over and the new term of the village panchayat was declared. Accordingly, the Petitioner again contested the election with the same earlier caste certificate being submitted to the Scrutiny Committee. Again, the Petitioner got elected against the reserved post of S.T. Women category.

After a period of one year, the sixth Respondent filed dispute before the third Respondent i.e., District Collector, Nanded by taking recourse to the provisions of sections 10-1A read with Section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act and prayed that the Petitioner be declared as disqualified as her caste certificate was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee. On knowing about the complaint, the Petitioner applied for fresh certificate which was rejected. Thereafter, The District Collector disqualified the Petitioner from being a member of the Village Panchayat on account of non-submission of the validity certificate within a stipulated period. Hence, the present petition.

After analyzing the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, the High Court found that the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, trying an election petition under section 15 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act is circumscribed by sub-section (5) and (6) of section 15.

The Bench noted that the proviso to section 10-1A gives an option of submitting the caste validity certificate at the time of filing of the nomination or to produce proof of having made an application to the Scrutiny Committee to validate his caste validity certificate and in the event, the caste validity certificate is not produced within a period mentioned in section 10-1A, his election is deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualified from being a member.

The Bench, therefore, dismissed the petition and concluded that the Collector under section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the issue of submission of a false claim or a false caste certificate at the time of nomination or non-submission of caste validity certificate within the period contemplated in section 10-1A of the Village Panchayat Act.

3a8082e126