{"id":155013,"date":"2011-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011"},"modified":"2015-07-16T22:19:12","modified_gmt":"2015-07-16T16:49:12","slug":"arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Arun Kanhu Pawar vs Sakru Ganu Rathod on 21 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Arun Kanhu Pawar vs Sakru Ganu Rathod on 21 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: R. M. Savant<\/div>\n
     2107wp1907.11.odt                                                                                1\/9\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                         \n                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n            WRIT PETITION NOS.1907\/2011, 1908\/2011 & 3435\/2011\n     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n<\/pre>\n
                                WRIT PETITION NO.1907\/2011<\/p>\n
     PETITIONER :-                       Arun Kanhu Pawar,
\n                                         Aged 21 years, Occupation agriculturist,<\/p>\n
                                         R\/o Mhaismal, Post Belora,
\n                                         Tahsil Pusad, District Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                          ig                  …VERSUS…\n<\/p>\n
     RESPONDENTS :-                 1. Sakru Ganu Rathod, <\/p>\n
                                       Aged 65 years, Occupation agriculturist,
\n                                       R\/o Mhaismal, Post Belora,
\n                                       Tahsil Pusad, District Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                                    2. Additional Commissioner,
\n                                       Amravati Division, Amravati.\n<\/p>\n
                                    3. Additional Collector, Yavatmal,
\n                                       District Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                                    4. Secretary, Gram Panchayat Mhaismal,<\/p>\n
                                       Post Belora, Tahsil Pusad,
\n                                       District Yavatmal.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                                   WITH\n\n\n\n\n\n                                WRIT PETITION NO.1908\/2011\n\n     PETITIONER :-                       Vikas Zapa Pawar, \n<\/pre>\n
                                         Aged 30 years, Occupation agriculturist,
\n                                         R\/o Mhaismal, Post Belora,
\n                                         Tahsil Pusad, District Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                                              …VERSUS…\n<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:10 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      2107wp1907.11.odt                                                            2\/9<\/p>\n
     RESPONDENTS :-        1. Sakru Ganu Rathod,
\n                              Aged 65 years, Occupation agriculturist,
\n                              R\/o Mhaismal, Post Belora, <\/p>\n
                              Tahsil Pusad, District Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                           2. Additional Commissioner,
\n                              Amravati Division, Amravati.\n<\/p>\n
                           3. Additional Collector, Yavatmal,
\n                              District Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                           4. Secretary, Gram Panchayat Mhaismal,<\/p>\n
                              Post Belora, Tahsil Pusad,
\n                              District Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                      ig             WITH\n                    \n                         WRIT PETITION NO.3435\/2011\n\n     PETITIONER :-            Sou. Savita Shalik Chavan,\n<\/pre>\n
                              Aged about 29 years, Occup. Agriculturist,<\/p>\n
                              R\/o Mhaismal, Post Belora,
\n                              Tq. Pusad, District Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                                  …VERSUS…\n<\/p>\n
     RESPONDENTS :-        1. Addl. Commissioner,
\n                              Amravati Division, Amravati.\n<\/p>\n
                           2. Addl. Collector, Yavatmal,<\/p>\n
                           3. Secretary, Gram Panchayat Mhaismal,
\n                              Post Belora, Tq.Pusad, <\/p>\n
                              Distt. Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                           4. Sakru Ganu Rathod,
\n                              Aged 65 years, Occup. Agriculturist,
\n                              R\/o Mhaismal, Post Belora,
\n                              Tq. Pusad, District Yavatmal.\n<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:10 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      2107wp1907.11.odt                                                                                3\/9<\/p>\n
     —————————————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
                                 In W.P. Nos.1907 & 1908 of 2011
\n                   S\/Shri R. Deo & P.B.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    Shri R.N.Ghuge, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
\n                    Shri A.D. Sonak, learned AGP for respondent Nos.2 and 3
\n                    Shri S. P. Pawar, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                In W.P. Nos.1907 & 1908 of 2011<\/p>\n
                        Shri P.B.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner.
\n                   Shri A.D. Sonak, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
\n                   Shri S. P. Pawar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
\n                   Shri R.N.Ghuge, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     —————————————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
                          ig
\n                                                   CORAM : R. M. SAVANT J.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                                                   DATED  : 21.07.2011 \n                        \n     O R A L    J U D G M E N T\n\n\n\n     1)        Rule   with   the   consent   of   the   parties   made   returnable   forthwith   and \n      \n\n\n     heard. \n   \n\n\n\n     2)        The above writ petitions take exception to the orders passed by the \n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, by which orders <\/p>\n
     the Additional Commissioner in each of the above petitions has allowed <\/p>\n
     the   Appeals   filed   by   the   complainant   i.e.   the   respondent   No.1   herein <\/p>\n
     Sakru   Ganu   Rathod   in   Writ   Petition   No.1907\/2011   and   thereby   has <\/p>\n
     disqualified the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1907\/2011 as Sarpanch and <\/p>\n
     the   petitioners   in   Writ   Petition   Nos.3435\/2011   and   1908\/2011   as <\/p>\n
     members of the Gram Panchayat Mhaismal. The petitioners in each of the <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:10 :::<\/span>
\n      2107wp1907.11.odt                                                                       4\/9<\/p>\n
     above   petitions   were   elected   as   members   of   the   Gram   Panchayat <\/p>\n
     Mhaismal in the elections held in the year 2010.  Thereafter the petitioner <\/p>\n
     in   Writ   Petition   No.1907   was   elected   as   the   Sarpanch   of   the   Gram <\/p>\n
     Panchayat   Mhaismal.     The   respondent   No.1   herein   i.e.   Sakru   Ganu <\/p>\n
     Rathod, who is the complainant in all the matters, had also contested the <\/p>\n
     elections to the post of Sarpanch and had lost the same.  The respondent <\/p>\n
     No.1   filed   an   application   against   each   of   the   petitioners   above   named <\/p>\n
     under Section 14 (1) (j-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 <\/p>\n
     (for brevity referred to as the “said Act”) seeking disqualification of the <\/p>\n
     petitioners on  the  ground  that they have   carried  out  encroachment on <\/p>\n
     Government land.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3)      In so far as Writ Petition No.1907\/2011 is concerned, it is the case <\/p>\n
     of   the   respondent   No.1   that   he   filed   complaint   before   the   Additional <\/p>\n
     Collector   that   the   father   of   the   petitioner   one   Kanhu   Zapa   Pawar   has <\/p>\n
     encroached upon the Government land and the petitioner herein i.e. Arun <\/p>\n
     Kanhu Pawar, who is presently prosecuting his study at Mukhed, District <\/p>\n
     Nanded,   is   disqualified   to   be   a   member   of   the   Gram   Panchayat.\n<\/p>\n
     Similarly, averment is there in the complaint filed against the petitioner in <\/p>\n
     Writ Petition No.1908\/2011.   In so far as the petitioner in Writ Petition <\/p>\n
     No.3435\/2011 is concerned, the averment in the complaint against the <\/p>\n
     said petitioner is that her father-in-law had carried out construction.  The <\/p>\n
     said complaints were replied to by each of the petitioners above named.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:10 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      2107wp1907.11.odt                                                                           5\/9\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n     4)      It   was   the   case   of   the   petitioners   that   they   are   residing   in   the \n\n<\/pre>\n
     locality known as New Tanda Basti along with 50 to 60 other families <\/p>\n
     wherein   the   basic   amenities   like   road,   drinking   water,   etc.   had   been <\/p>\n
     provided   to   them   and   that   the   Gram   Panchayat   has   been   recovering <\/p>\n
     property   tax   for   the   structure   in   question.     It   appears   that   the   Gram <\/p>\n
     Panchayat also filed its reply in the said proceedings and stated that the <\/p>\n
     petitioners in the above petitions are the residents of the said New Tanda <\/p>\n
     Basti wherein 50 to 60 families have been residing since last 30 to 40 <\/p>\n
     years and that the Gram Panchayat is recovering taxes in respect of the <\/p>\n
     said structures.\n<\/p>\n
     5)      The Additional Collector, Yavatmal considered the said application <\/p>\n
     filed by the complainant i.e. the respondent No.1 herein and by his order <\/p>\n
     dated   13th  December,   2010   rejected   the   said   application.     Similarly,   is <\/p>\n
     the   position   in   Writ   Petition   No.1908\/2011   as   also   in   Writ   Petition <\/p>\n
     No.3435\/2011.\n<\/p>\n
     6)      Aggrieved   by   the   said   order   dated   13th  December,   2010,   the <\/p>\n
     respondent   No.1   Sakru   Ganu   Rathod   filed   an   Appeal   before   the   State <\/p>\n
     Government.  The said Appeal was tried by the Additional Collector and <\/p>\n
     by the impugned order dated 07\/04\/2011 in Writ Petition No.1907\/2011 <\/p>\n
     as well as in Writ Petition No.1908\/2011, allowed the said Appeals and <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:10 :::<\/span>
\n      2107wp1907.11.odt                                                                        6\/9<\/p>\n
     resultantly disqualified the petitioners in each of the above petitions to <\/p>\n
     be   Sarpanch   and   members   respectively.   In   so   far   as   Writ   Petition <\/p>\n
     No.3435\/2011 is concerned, the order is dated 06\/06\/2011 disqualifying <\/p>\n
     the petitioner therein.\n<\/p>\n
     7)      In so far as the order of the Additional Collector is concerned, The <\/p>\n
     Additional  Collector,  as  can  be  ex  facie  seen   from  his  order  dated   13th <\/p>\n
     December, 2010, considered the material that was placed on record by the <\/p>\n
     petitioners,   which   included   the   extract   of   the   tax   register   wherein   the <\/p>\n
     payment of tax in so far as the structure of the petitioner was concerned, <\/p>\n
     was shown.  The Additional Collector took into consideration the fact that <\/p>\n
     though the owner’s name is mentioned as Government, the name of the <\/p>\n
     person shown in possession is Kanhu Zapa Pawar against the structure <\/p>\n
     bearing No.264. The Additional Collector also took into consideration the <\/p>\n
     fact that there is no proceeding pending in any Court in respect of the <\/p>\n
     alleged   encroachment.     The   Additional   Collector   relying   on   the   said <\/p>\n
     documents   and   also   considering   the   fact   that   no   contra   material   was <\/p>\n
     produced by the respondent No.1, came to a conclusion that it could not <\/p>\n
     be said that the encroachment by the petitioners was proved.\n<\/p>\n
     8)      In so far as the Additional Commissioner, who was the Appellate <\/p>\n
     Authority,   is   concerned,   the   Appellate   Authority   seems   to   have   been <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:10 :::<\/span>
\n      2107wp1907.11.odt                                                                     7\/9<\/p>\n
     swayed by the fact that the land is shown to be belonging to the State <\/p>\n
     Government and, therefore, even if the basic amenities, etc. are given to <\/p>\n
     the occupants of the said new Tanda Basti and even if the tax has been <\/p>\n
     recovered   by   the   Gram   Panchayat,   that   would   be   of   no   avail.     The <\/p>\n
     Additional Commissioner to say the least has by a cryptic order allowed <\/p>\n
     the said Appeal without considering the matter in its proper perspective <\/p>\n
     qua the allegation which was made in terms of the ground available in <\/p>\n
     Section 14 (1) (j-3) of the said Act.  The Additional Commissioner has not <\/p>\n
     even adverted to the case of the respondent No.1 complainant that it was <\/p>\n
     the   father   of   the   petitioner,   who   had   allegedly   encroached   upon   the <\/p>\n
     Government land and whether on the said basis the petitioner could be <\/p>\n
     disqualified under Section 14 (1) (j-3) of the said Act on the said ground.\n<\/p>\n
     However, by merely referring to the word ‘encroachment’ as appearing in <\/p>\n
     Section 14 (1) (j-3), the Additional Commissioner has allowed the Appeal <\/p>\n
     and disqualified the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1907\/2011 as also the <\/p>\n
     petitioner   in   the   other   two   petitions   on   the   ground   that   they   had <\/p>\n
     committed encroachment.  The said order of the Additional Commissioner <\/p>\n
     makes a totally unsatisfactory reading. It is expected of a quasi judicial <\/p>\n
     authority to record finding of facts as well as law, when it is dealing with <\/p>\n
     the matter within its jurisdiction more so when it is dealing with a matter <\/p>\n
     as serious as the disqualification of the members of the Gram Panchayat <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:10 :::<\/span>
\n      2107wp1907.11.odt                                                                      8\/9<\/p>\n
     and the Sarpanch.   The same is totally found lacking in the impugned <\/p>\n
     orders.  In that view of the matter, the impugned orders in all the above <\/p>\n
     petitions passed by the Additional Commissioner are required to be set <\/p>\n
     aside and the matters are required to be relegated back to the Additional <\/p>\n
     Commissioner   for   a  de   novo  consideration.     Hence,   the   following <\/p>\n
     directions.\n<\/p>\n
     i)     The  impugned  orders  dated  07\/04\/2011  (subject matter  of Writ <\/p>\n
            Petition   Nos.1907\/2011   and   1908\/2011)   and   order   dated <\/p>\n
            06\/06\/2011   (subject   matter   of   Writ   Petition   No.3435\/2011)   are <\/p>\n
            quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     ii)    The Appeals are remanded back to the Additional Commissioner <\/p>\n
            for a de novo consideration.\n<\/p>\n
     iii)   The   Additional   Commissioner   to   consider   the   matters   in   the <\/p>\n
            context of the pleadings of the parties having regard to the case of <\/p>\n
            the complainant and the reply filed by the petitioners herein.\n<\/p>\n
     iv)    The   issue   would   have   to   be   considered   on   the   touchstone   of <\/p>\n
            Section   14   (1)   (j-3)   of   the   Bombay   Village   and   Panchayats   Act, <\/p>\n
            1958 and finding would have to be recorded as to whether in the <\/p>\n
            light of the case of the complainant himself whether the petitioners <\/p>\n
            in each of the above petitions can be disqualified. <\/p>\n
\n\n     v)     The   Additional   Commissioner   to   consider   in   the   light   of   the \n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:32:10 :::<\/span>\n      2107wp1907.11.odt                                                                      9\/9\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n<\/pre>\n
              material on record of the new Tanda Basti being in existence for <\/p>\n
              the last 30 to 40 years, the said new Tanda Basti being provided the <\/p>\n
              basic amenities, the taxes being recovered by the Gram Panchayat, <\/p>\n
              and in the light of the aforesaid facts whether the petitioners can <\/p>\n
              be said to be encroachers on Government property.\n<\/p>\n
     vi)      The parties would be entitled to file further replies\/documents, if <\/p>\n
              so advised.\n<\/p>\n
     vii)<\/p>\n
              The Additional Commissioner to deal with the contentions of the <\/p>\n
              parties and record findings and pass a well reasoned order in the <\/p>\n
              Appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     viii)    The parties to appear before the Additional Commissioner on 16th <\/p>\n
              August, 2011.   The Additional Commissioner thereafter to decide <\/p>\n
              the   Appeals   within   a   period   of   two   months   from   the   first <\/p>\n
              appearance of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
     9)       Rule   is   accordingly   made   absolute   in   the   aforesaid   terms   with <\/p>\n
     parties to bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   JUDGE <\/p>\n
     KHUNTE<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:10 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Arun Kanhu Pawar vs Sakru Ganu Rathod on 21 July, 2011 Bench: R. M. Savant 2107wp1907.11.odt 1\/9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NOS.1907\/2011, 1908\/2011 & 3435\/2011 —————————————————————————————————– WRIT PETITION NO.1907\/2011 PETITIONER :- Arun Kanhu Pawar, Aged 21 years, Occupation agriculturist, R\/o Mhaismal, Post Belora, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-155013","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nArun Kanhu Pawar vs Sakru Ganu Rathod on 21 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arun Kanhu Pawar vs Sakru Ganu Rathod on 21 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-16T16:49:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arun Kanhu Pawar vs Sakru Ganu Rathod on 21 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-16T16:49:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1632,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Arun Kanhu Pawar vs Sakru Ganu Rathod on 21 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-16T16:49:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arun Kanhu Pawar vs Sakru Ganu Rathod on 21 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Arun Kanhu Pawar vs Sakru Ganu Rathod on 21 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arun Kanhu Pawar vs Sakru Ganu Rathod on 21 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-16T16:49:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arun Kanhu Pawar vs Sakru Ganu Rathod on 21 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-16T16:49:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011"},"wordCount":1632,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011","name":"Arun Kanhu Pawar vs Sakru Ganu Rathod on 21 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-16T16:49:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-kanhu-pawar-vs-sakru-ganu-rathod-on-21-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arun Kanhu Pawar vs Sakru Ganu Rathod on 21 July, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155013","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=155013"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155013\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155013"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155013"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155013"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}