{"id":223878,"date":"2010-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-07-17T22:03:30","modified_gmt":"2018-07-17T16:33:30","slug":"jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo vs The Collector At Satara on 1 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo vs The Collector At Satara on 1 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: D.D. Sinha, Mridula Bhatkar<\/div>\n
                                       1\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n                     WRIT PETITION NO. 3545 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n    1.   Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo               ]\n         Age 54 years, Occ: Agriculture       ]\n         Residing at Tambi Punarwasan,        ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n         Taluka - Koregaon, District Satara   ]\n    2.   Mr. Sapkal Sampat Bhau               ]\n         Age 48 years, Occ: Labour,           ]\n         Residing at Tambi Punarwasan,        ]\n         Taluka - Koregaon, District Satara   ]..Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n                      versus\n    1.   The Collector at Satara\n                           ig                 ]\n         having office at Powainaka,          ]\n         Satara, District - Satara            ]\n                         \n    2.   The Election Commission              ]\n         Maharashtra,                         ]\n         having office Opposite Mantralaya,   ]\n         Mumbai, Maharashtra                  ]..Respondents\n           \n        \n\n\n\n    Mr. U. P. Warunjikar for Petitioners.\n    Mrs. M. P. Thakur - AGP for Respondent No. 1.\n    Mr. S. S. Shetye for Respondent No. 2.\n\n\n\n\n\n                              CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND\n                                      MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                              Judgment Reserved on : 21.07.2010
\n                              Judgment Pronounced on : 01.09.2010<\/p>\n
    JUDGMENT : (Per : D. D. Sinha, J.)<\/p>\n
         Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant<\/p>\n
    Government for the respondent no.1 and the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:23:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
    respondent no. 2.\n<\/p>\n
    2.    Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are<\/p>\n
    project affected persons, who became landless and were rehabilitated in<\/p>\n
    Village Revadi by allotting an area admeasuring about 4000 sq. ft. each.\n<\/p>\n
    The petitioners made representation for formation of separate village of all<\/p>\n
    the rehabilitated villagers as they have separate problems than the other<\/p>\n
    villagers. On 6th August 1995 notification was issued by the Additional<\/p>\n
    Collector by exercising power under section 4(1) of The Maharashtra<\/p>\n
    Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for the sake of brevity and convenience referred<\/p>\n
    to as “MLR Code”) and new village by name Tambi Punarvasit came to be<\/p>\n
    established.   On 4th December 1999 notification in official gazette by<\/p>\n
    exercising power under section 4(2) of The Bombay Village Panchayats Act,<\/p>\n
    1958 (for the sake of brevity and convenience referred to as ” the BVP<\/p>\n
    Act”) and Article 243 (g) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (for the sake of<\/p>\n
    brevity and convenience referred to as “the Constitution”) was published.\n<\/p>\n
    3.    It is submitted that on 12th January 2010 notice in Form ‘B’ under<\/p>\n
    Rule 5(2) of    The Bombay Village Panchayats (Number of Members,<\/p>\n
    Divisions into Wards and Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1966 ((for the sake of<\/p>\n
    brevity and convenience referred to as “BVP Rules, 1966”) was issued by<\/p>\n
    the respondent no.1 on behalf of respondent no.2 in respect of Village<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:23:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
    Panchayat Tambi. Objections were invited for proposed formation of wards.\n<\/p>\n
    Objections were raised by the petitioners and others on 14th January 2010.\n<\/p>\n
    Similarly notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was issued on<\/p>\n
    18th January 2010 through advocate. On 30th January 2010 impugned order<\/p>\n
    was passed by respondent no.1 on behalf of respondent no. 2.\n<\/p>\n
    4.    The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present petition<\/p>\n
    was filed in April 2010. The Assistant Commissioner of respondent no.2<\/p>\n
    filed his affidavit dated 5th May 2010 and admitted that 18 families who<\/p>\n
    were residing in Village Revadi were included in Village Tambi since such<\/p>\n
    inclusion was necessary so as to match the population ratio as provided<\/p>\n
    under MLR Code. It is submitted that reason for inclusion is that all civic<\/p>\n
    facilities are provided by Village Tambi even though the said families form<\/p>\n
    part of Village Revadi. The counsel for the petitioners further contended<\/p>\n
    that in the affidavit of Tahsildar of Koregaon dated 18th June 2010 it is<\/p>\n
    admitted that 18 families    have been included in Village Tambi.               It is<\/p>\n
    submitted that in order to appreciate the controversy in issue, provisions of<\/p>\n
    Sections 3(24), 3(14) and 3(25) of the BVP Act needs to be considered.\n<\/p>\n
    Section 4 deals with the declaration of Declaration of Village and Section 5<\/p>\n
    deals with Establishment of Panchayats.         In the present case both<\/p>\n
    notifications are issued in respect of Village Tambi under Section 4 of MLR<\/p>\n
    Code and under section 4 read with Article 243(g) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:23:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
    Provisions of Rule 3 of BVP Rules 1966 contemplates division of village<\/p>\n
    into wards. Similarly under the Rules the word “Village” is not defined and<\/p>\n
    therefore it is necessary to go by the definition of “Village” mentioned in<\/p>\n
    Section 3(24) of the BVP Act. It is therefore contended that in any case<\/p>\n
    there cannot be inclusion of villagers of one village into another village<\/p>\n
    while formation of wards.\n<\/p>\n
    5.    It is contended that Rule 5 of BVP Rules, 1966 stipulates constitution<\/p>\n
    of a Panchayat. The word “Panchayat” has been defined under Section 3(14)<\/p>\n
    of the BVP Act. Similarly Section 5 states that in every village there shall be<\/p>\n
    a Panchayat and therefore if there is a separate Panchayat for Village Tambi<\/p>\n
    then by exercising power under Rule 5 the villagers of Village Revadi<\/p>\n
    cannot be included in the village Tambi. The counsel for the petitioners<\/p>\n
    further contended that Rule 5 contemplates issuance of notification in Form<\/p>\n
    ‘A’. In any case by exercising power under sub rule (1) of Rule 5 or sub<\/p>\n
    rule (2) of Rule 5 boundaries of the village as contemplated under Section<\/p>\n
    3(24) of the BVP Act read with Article 243(g) of the Constitution, as well<\/p>\n
    as Section 4 of the MLR Code cannot be altered. The BVP Rules 1966 has<\/p>\n
    been framed by exercising power under Section 176(1)(2)(iia), therefore, in<\/p>\n
    any   case the Rules are framed by exercising power with reference to<\/p>\n
    Section 10 i.e. “Constitution of Panchayat” and therefore the boundaries of<\/p>\n
    the village cannot be altered nor the villagers from another village can be<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:23:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
    included in another village at the time of formation of wards.\n<\/p>\n
    6.    It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that<\/p>\n
    title of Rule 5 BVP Rules 1966 deals with publication of constitution of<\/p>\n
    panchayat. Sub rule (1) contemplates number of members of a panchayat,<\/p>\n
    the number of ward into which each village shall be divided, number of<\/p>\n
    villagers which shall be elected from each ward and the ward or wards in<\/p>\n
    which seats are reserved for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward<\/p>\n
    class of citizens and women, shall be published by an officer authorised by<\/p>\n
    the State Election Commissioner, by issuing notification in Form ‘A’. It is<\/p>\n
    contended that the declaration of village once is made by issuing<\/p>\n
    notification under sub clause (g) of Article 243 of the Constitution the said<\/p>\n
    village shall be known by name of the said village specified in that<\/p>\n
    notification and the State Election Commissioner does not have any power<\/p>\n
    either under Section 4 of the BVP Act or under Section 4 of the MLR Code<\/p>\n
    to alter, modify the said declaration made by the State Government under<\/p>\n
    these provisions. It is submitted that merely because elections in the year<\/p>\n
    2000 and 2005 were held on the basis of inclusion of 18 families of Village<\/p>\n
    Revadi into the Village Tambi, cannot be a valid ground to conduct the<\/p>\n
    present election of the Gram Panchayat of Tambi by including 18 families<\/p>\n
    of Village Revadi into Village Tambi. The said action of the Election<\/p>\n
    Commission is illegal and therefore unsustainable in law. It is contended<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:23:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
    that the objection raised by the petitioners in this regard was wrongly<\/p>\n
    rejected by the Competent Authority.\n<\/p>\n
    7.    Learned counsel for the respondent no.2         has submitted that the<\/p>\n
    contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners are devoid<\/p>\n
    of substance and therefore cannot be accepted. It is contended that Rule 5<\/p>\n
    deals with the publication of constitution of a panchayat. It also provides for<\/p>\n
    publication of draft notification declaring the number of members of<\/p>\n
    Panchayat, the number of wards into which each village shall be divided,<\/p>\n
    the extent of each such ward and number of members which shall be<\/p>\n
    elected from each ward. It further provides that the copy of the said<\/p>\n
    notification shall be affixed at Village Revadi so also at a conspicuous place<\/p>\n
    in the village and in case of panchayat for a local area comprising a group<\/p>\n
    of revenue villages or hamlets forming part of a revenue village, in each of<\/p>\n
    such village or hamlet. It is contended that sub rule (2) of Rule 5 provides<\/p>\n
    for inviting objection from any affected person(s) and it further provides<\/p>\n
    that after hearing the affected person(s), the Collector shall issue a final<\/p>\n
    notification under Rule 5(i) of the BVP Act. It is submitted that Chapter IX<\/p>\n
    of the Constitution deals with the Panchayats. Article 243 defines various<\/p>\n
    terms such as “Panchayat”, “Panchayat area”, “Village”. Article 243(d)<\/p>\n
    stipulates “Panchayat” means an institution of self government, constituted<\/p>\n
    under Article 243-B for the rural areas.        Article 243(e) contemplates<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:23:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
    “Panchayat area” means the territorial area of a Panchayat. Article 243(g)<\/p>\n
    contemplates “Village” means a village specified by the Governor by public<\/p>\n
    notification to be a village for the purposes of this Part and includes a<\/p>\n
    group of villages so specified. Article 243-B deals with Constitution of<\/p>\n
    Panchayats ……. “There shall be constituted in every State, Panchayats at the<\/p>\n
    village, intermediate and district levels in accordance with the provisions of<\/p>\n
    this Part”. Article 243-K deals with Elections to the Panchayats. Article 243-\n<\/p>\n
    K(i) deals with “The superintendence, direction and control of the<\/p>\n
    preparation of electoral rolls, for, and the conduct of, all elections of the<\/p>\n
    Panchayats shall be vested in a State Election Commission consisting of a<\/p>\n
    State Election Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor”. Counsel for<\/p>\n
    the respondent no. 2 further submitted that Section 10A of the BVP Act<\/p>\n
    provides “The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of<\/p>\n
    the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of all elections shall be vested in the<\/p>\n
    State Election Commissioner.” Sub section (2) of Section 10A empowers<\/p>\n
    the State Election Commissioner to delegate any             of his powers and<\/p>\n
    functions to any officer of the State Government not below the rank of<\/p>\n
    Tahsildar. Counsel for the respondent no. 2 in the context of the scheme of<\/p>\n
    the above referred provisions of the BVP Act, BVP Rules and Constitution<\/p>\n
    has submitted that elections are to be conducted for Panchayat and not for<\/p>\n
    village. It is submitted that “Panchayat area” and “Village” has been defined<\/p>\n
    separately. The definition of village makes it clear that it also includes group<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:23:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
    of villages and part thereof.\n<\/p>\n
    8.    Counsel for the respondent no.2 further submitted that Rule 5 of BVP<\/p>\n
    Rules, 1966 needs to be read with provisions of Chapter IX of the<\/p>\n
    Constitution. It is submitted that the authorities are require to declare the<\/p>\n
    panchayat area, which may constitute amalgamated group of villages or part<\/p>\n
    of villages. Counsel for the respondent no.2 further submitted that<\/p>\n
    notification under Rule 5(1) determines the “Panchayat Area” of Tambi<\/p>\n
    Village Panchayat for the purpose of election to the said Village Panchayat.\n<\/p>\n
    It is contended that in other words revenue limits of villages and territorial<\/p>\n
    area of Village Panchayats are two separate terms which are separately<\/p>\n
    defined in the Constitution of India, so also the BVP Act, 1958. Thus there<\/p>\n
    is absolutely no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners and<\/p>\n
    therefore petition deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    9.    Counsel for the respondent no. 2 further contended that the challenge<\/p>\n
    in the present petition is to the “formation of wards” in Panchayat elections.\n<\/p>\n
    In other words petition challenges the delimitation of Panchayat area \/<\/p>\n
    constituencies   determined by the authorities and therefore in view of<\/p>\n
    provisions of Article 243-O, it is well settled that the delimitation of<\/p>\n
    Panchayat area or constituencies in the said area are not open to judicial<\/p>\n
    scrutiny. In order to substantiate the said contention, reliance is placed on<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:23:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
    the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs.<\/p>\n
    Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti [1995 (Supp.2) SCC 305]. The challenge<\/p>\n
    can be entertained by the court only on the ground that before delimitation,<\/p>\n
    no objections were invited and no hearing was given. It is submitted that in<\/p>\n
    the present case admittedly the objections were invited. Petitioners had<\/p>\n
    raised their objections and after hearing them the objections were turned<\/p>\n
    down by the Collector Satara by recording reasons and therefore impugned<\/p>\n
    order is sustainable in law.\n<\/p>\n
    10.      The learned Assistant Government Pleader supported the stand taken<\/p>\n
    by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned<\/p>\n
    order.\n<\/p>\n
    11.      Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel.\n<\/p>\n
    Perused the relevant Rules, relevant provisions of the Act and Rules, as well<\/p>\n
    as Constitution and perused the decision of the Apex Court in the case of<\/p>\n
    State of Uttar Pradesh (cited supra).\n<\/p>\n
    12.      In the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order passed<\/p>\n
    by the Collector Satara dated 30th January 2010 whereby objections raised<\/p>\n
    by the petitioners to the final notification issued under Rule 5 of the BVP<\/p>\n
    Rules 1966 came to be rejected. In other words the petitioners are<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:23:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
    challenging the formation of wards of Tambi Village Panchayat, District<\/p>\n
    Satara. Chapter IX of Constitution deals with Panchayats and Article 243<\/p>\n
    provides   definitions. For our purpose, Article 243(d), (e) and (g) are<\/p>\n
    relevant, which reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
                “Article 243(d) “Panchayat”        means an institution (by<\/p>\n
                whatever name called) of self government constituted<\/p>\n
                under article 243-B, for the rural areas;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                “Article 243(e) “Panchayat area” means the territorial area<\/p>\n
                of a Panchayat;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                “Article 243(g) “village”, means a village specified by<\/p>\n
                the Governor by public notification to be a village for the<\/p>\n
                purposes of this Part and includes a group of villages so<\/p>\n
                specified.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    It is therefore evident that the territorial area of a Panchayat is distinct and<\/p>\n
    separate from the revenue limits of the village which also include group of<\/p>\n
    villages. Similarly, Article 243-C deals with compositions of panchayats<\/p>\n
    and Article 243-K deals with Elections to the Panchayats. Article 243-K(1)<\/p>\n
    contemplates the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation<\/p>\n
    of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats shall<\/p>\n
    be vested in a State Election Commission consisting of a State Election<\/p>\n
    Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor. [Sub clauses 2, 3, 4 of<\/p>\n
    Article 243-K are not relevant for deciding the issue in question]. Article<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:23:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                             11<\/span><\/p>\n
    243-O prohibits interference by the court in           electoral matters and<\/p>\n
    contemplates that notwithstanding anything in this Constitution the validity<\/p>\n
    of any law relating to delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats<\/p>\n
    to such constituencies made or purporting to be made under Article243-K,<\/p>\n
    shall not be called in question in any court. Sub clause (b) stipulates that no<\/p>\n
    election to any Panchayats shall be called in question except by an election<\/p>\n
    petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for<\/p>\n
    by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. It is therefore<\/p>\n
    evident that as per the provisions of Article 243-O(a) once the power<\/p>\n
    exercised by the State Election Commission       in relation to delimitation of<\/p>\n
    constituencies or allotment of seats to such constituencies of the Panchayat,<\/p>\n
    such action cannot be called in question in any court. The issue is no more<\/p>\n
    res integra and is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in case of State<\/p>\n
    of Uttar Pradesh (cited supra). Relevant observations are in paragraph 45 of<\/p>\n
    the said judgment, which reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
                 “(45) WHAT is more objectionable in the approach of<\/p>\n
                 the High Court is that although clause (a) of Article 243-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 O of the Constitution enacts a bar on the interference by<\/p>\n
                 the courts in electoral matters including the questioning<\/p>\n
                 of the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of<\/p>\n
                 the constituencies or the allotment of seats to such<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:23:10 :::<\/span>
\n                              12<\/span><\/p>\n
     constituencies made or purported to be made under<\/p>\n
     Article 243-K and the election to any panchayat, the<\/p>\n
     High Court has gone into the question of the validity of<\/p>\n
     the delimitation of the constituencies        and also the<\/p>\n
     allotment of seats to them. We may, in this connection,<\/p>\n
     refer to a decision of this court in Meghraj Kothari v.\n<\/p>\n
     Delimitation Commission. In that case, a notification of<\/p>\n
     the Delimitation Commission whereby a city which had<\/p>\n
     been a general constituency was notified as reserved for<\/p>\n
     the Scheduled Castes, This was challenged on the<\/p>\n
     ground that the petitioner had a right to be a candidate<\/p>\n
     for Parliament from the said constituency which had<\/p>\n
     been taken away. This court held that the impugned<\/p>\n
     notification was a law relating to the delimitation of the<\/p>\n
     constituencies or the allotment of seats to such<\/p>\n
     constituencies   made    under   Article     327      of    the<\/p>\n
     Constitution, and that an examination of S. 8 and 9 of<\/p>\n
     the Delimitation Commission Act showed that the<\/p>\n
     matters therein dealt with were not subject to the<\/p>\n
     scrutiny of any court of law. There was a very good<\/p>\n
     reason for such a provision because if the orders made<\/p>\n
     under S. 8 and 9 were not to be treated as final, the<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:23:10 :::<\/span>
\n                              13<\/span><\/p>\n
     result would be that any voter, if he so wished, could<\/p>\n
     hold up an election indefinitely by questioning the<\/p>\n
     delimitation of the constituencies from court to court.\n<\/p>\n
     Although an order under Section 8 or Section 9 of the<\/p>\n
     Delimitation Commission Act and published under<\/p>\n
     Section 10 (1 of that Act is not part of an Act of<\/p>\n
     Parliament, its effect is the same. Section 10 (4 of that<\/p>\n
     Act puts such an order in the same position as a law<\/p>\n
     made by Parliament itself which could only be made by<\/p>\n
     it under Article 327. If we read Articles 243-C, 243-K<\/p>\n
     and 243-O in place of Article 327 and S.2(kk), 11-F and<\/p>\n
     12-BB of the Act in place of S. 8 and 9 of the<\/p>\n
     Delimitation Act. 1950, it will be obvious that neither<\/p>\n
     the delimitation of the panchayat area nor of the<\/p>\n
     constituencies in the said areas and the allotments of<\/p>\n
     seats to the constituencies could have been challenged<\/p>\n
     nor the court could have entertained such challenge<\/p>\n
     except on the ground that before the delimitation, no<\/p>\n
     objections were invited and no hearing was given. Even<\/p>\n
     this challenge could not have been entertained after the<\/p>\n
     notification for holding the elections was issued. The<\/p>\n
     High court not only entertained the challenge but has<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:23:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                          14<\/span><\/p>\n
                 also gone into the merits of the alleged grievances<\/p>\n
                 although the challenge was made after the notification<\/p>\n
                 for the election was issued on 31\/8\/1994.”\n<\/p>\n
    The plain reading of the above referred observations made by the Apex<\/p>\n
    Court would show that if provisions of Article 243-C, 243-K and 243-O are<\/p>\n
    read together the delimitation of Panchayat area or the formation of the<\/p>\n
    constituencies in the said areas and allotments of seats to the constituencies<\/p>\n
    could be challenged nor the court can entertain such challenge except on<\/p>\n
    the ground that before delimitation, no objections were invited and no<\/p>\n
    hearing was given, even though this challenge also could not be entertained<\/p>\n
    after the notification for holding the election is issued. The law declared by<\/p>\n
    the Apex Court is loud and clear and prohibits courts to entertain challenge<\/p>\n
    in view of Article 243-C, 243-K read with 243-O in respect of the above<\/p>\n
    aspects, and therefore the challenge raised by the petitioners pertaining to<\/p>\n
    delimitation of Panchayat area or that of formation of constituency in the<\/p>\n
    said area as well as allotment of seat to such constituencies cannot be<\/p>\n
    entertained by this court since the objections were invited, petitioners have<\/p>\n
    raised objections, hearing was given to them and it is only thereafter the<\/p>\n
    objections were rejected by the Collector Satara by passing impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
    The contentions canvassed by the petitioners based on Rule 2 (5) of BVP<\/p>\n
    Rules, 1966 as well as Section 4 of MLR Code as well as Section 2(4) of the<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:23:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                          15<\/span><\/p>\n
    BVP Act in view of Article 243-C, Article 243-K and 243-O coupled with<\/p>\n
    the law declared by the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh (cited supra) is<\/p>\n
    devoid of substance.\n<\/p>\n
    13.   Petition suffers from lack of merits and the same is dismissed. No<\/p>\n
    order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                            ig                   (D. D. SINHA, J.)\n                          \n\n                                         (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)\n        \n     \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:23:10 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo vs The Collector At Satara on 1 September, 2010 Bench: D.D. Sinha, Mridula Bhatkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3545 OF 2010 1. Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo ] Age 54 years, Occ: Agriculture ] Residing at Tambi Punarwasan, ] Taluka […]<\/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-223878","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJadhav Shankar Dyandeo vs The Collector At Satara on 1 September, 2010 - 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\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo vs The Collector At Satara on 1 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-17T16:33:30+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo vs The Collector At Satara on 1 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-17T16:33:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3091,\"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\\\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo vs The Collector At Satara on 1 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-17T16:33:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo vs The Collector At Satara on 1 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo vs The Collector At Satara on 1 September, 2010 - 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\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo vs The Collector At Satara on 1 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-17T16:33:30+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo vs The Collector At Satara on 1 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-17T16:33:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010"},"wordCount":3091,"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\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010","name":"Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo vs The Collector At Satara on 1 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-17T16:33:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadhav-shankar-dyandeo-vs-the-collector-at-satara-on-1-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo vs The Collector At Satara on 1 September, 2010"}]},{"@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\/223878","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=223878"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223878\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223878"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223878"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223878"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}