Judgment : 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The petitioner has filed the above petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 31/01/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati, by which order the Appeal filed by the petitioner came to be rejected and thereby the order dated 6/7/2009 passed by the Additional Collector in Application being No.16/Ashtgaon/14(1) (j3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 came to be confirmed. 3. A few facts, which are necessary to be cited for the adjudication of the above petition are stated thus The petitioner is a resident of village Ashtgaon, Tq.Morshi, Distt.Amravati. The petitioner contested the elections held to the Grampanchayat Ashtgaon in the year 2007 and was elected as a Sarpanch on the post reserved for Scheduled Caste woman. It appears that after the said elections, the respondent no.1 filed an application invoking Section 14(1)(j3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act against the petitioner seeking her disqualification on the ground that the husband of the petitioner is an encroacher of Field Survey No. 28 being ‘EClass’ land. The said application filed by the respondent no.1 came to be allowed by the order dated 6/7/2007 and the petitioner came to be disqualified as a Sarpanch. 4. Whilst the said proceedings under the Bombay Village Panchayat Act were being proceeded with, it appears that a complaint came to be filed against the husband of the petitioner of having carried out encroachment on Field Survey No.28. By order dated 23/03/2009, the Tahsildar, Morshi decided the said complaint of encroachment against the husband of the petitioner. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner on filed an appeal on 5/5/2009 under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Morshi, which was registered as Revenue Appeal being No.LEN39/ Ashtgaon/2009/2010. By order dated 27/1/2010, the Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the Appeal filed by the husband of the petitioner Sanjay. However, by further order dated 2/2/2010, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Morshi stayed his order dated 27/1/2010 till 17/02/2010. The husband of the petitioner thereafter filed further Appeal before the Additional Collector, Amravati which came to be registered as Revenue Appeal being No.LEN39/ Ashtgaon6/ 2009-2010. However, by further order dated 2/2/2010, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Morshi stayed his order dated 27/1/2010 till 17/02/2010. The husband of the petitioner thereafter filed further Appeal before the Additional Collector, Amravati which came to be registered as Revenue Appeal being No.LEN39/ Ashtgaon6/ 2009-2010. The said appeal filed by the husband of the petitioner before the Additional Collector was partly allowed by the Additional Collector by order dated 30/08/2010 and the matter was remanded back to the Tahsildar as regards the case of encroachment against the husband of the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the Additional Collector, who passed the order, is now the in-charge Additional Commissioner, Amravati. The aforesaid developments are in so far as the proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are concerned, which have been adopted by the husband of the petitioner in respect of the alleged encroachment. 5. In so far as the disqualification of the petitioner is concerned, against the order dated 6/7/2009 passed by the Additional Collector the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner Amravati. As mentioned herein above, the person who passed the order as Additional Collector in the revenue proceedings is the incumbent of the office of the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner holding that the husband of the petitioner has carried out encroachment and therefore the petitioner be disqualified under Section 14 (1)(j3) of the said Act for the post of member of Grampanchayat. As can be seen, therefore, the same person discharging the duties of two authorities has passed contradictory orders in the two proceedings which have run parallel. In so far as the proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are concerned, the Additional Collector thought it fit to remand the matter back to the Tahsildar to ascertain as to whether the husband of the petitioner is a beneficiary under the ‘Gharkul Scheme’ and thereby postponed the decision as regards the allegation of encroachment being carried out by the husband of the petitioner. However, the same person whilst exercising powers under the Gram Panchayat Act as incharge Additional Commissioner has held that the petitioner be disqualified on account of the fact that her husband has carried out unauthorized construction. However, the same person whilst exercising powers under the Gram Panchayat Act as incharge Additional Commissioner has held that the petitioner be disqualified on account of the fact that her husband has carried out unauthorized construction. In my view, the least that was expected from the authority was that in view of the order passed by him earlier as an Additional Collector remanding the matter back to the Tahsildar as regards alleged encroachment carried out by the petitioner, he should have stayed the decision on the Appeal filed by the petitioner against her disqualification by the order dated 6/7/2009 passed by the Additional Collector. 6. In that view of the matter, the order impugned in the present petition i.e. the order dated 31/1/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner is required to be quashed and set aside, in view of the order of remand passed in the proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code the Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner is kept pending. It is further directed that only after the proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, culminate in an order deciding the issue of the alleged encroachment made by the husband of the petitioner, one way or other, that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner would be taken up for hearing. The authority under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code to whom the matter is remanded is, therefore, directed to hear and decide the said proceedings as expeditiously as possible and not later than two months from date. Needless to say that the said authority would afford opportunity to the concerned parties and decide the issue on its own merits and in accordance with law. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Parties to appear before the concerned Tahsildar on 04/07/2011.