JUDGMENT : Rule. Heard finally by consent of the parties present before the Court. 2. In the present case, respondent no.3 has been disqualified to be a member of the Gram Panchayat as per order dated 02-08-2017 passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur. It was held that the respondent no.3 incurred disqualification as contemplated under Section 14(1)(j3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958. This provision lays down that any member of the Gram Panchayat who is in unauthorized occupation of the public property or who has encroached upon Government land or public property is disqualified to be the member of the Gram Panchayat. 3. Earlier the view was that such disqualification would be incurred by the member of the Gram Panchayat, if the encroachment or unauthorized occupation is actually done by the member himself and it was not applicable to a case wherein encroachment or unauthorized occupation was made not by the member of the Gram Panchayat but by some relative of such member of the Gram Panchayat, irrespective of the fact the member of the Gram Panchayat occupied same property along with the person or relative who actually encroached upon or unauthorizedly occupied the government land or public property. 4. This was the view taken in the case of Sagar Pandurang Dhundare vs. Keshav Aaba Patil and others, decided by two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported at 2018(1) Mh.L.J. 1 . Now, there is a latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered by three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein the view taken in Sagar (supra) has been overruled. Now, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if a member of the Gram Panchayat remains in occupation of such encroached or unauthorised property, he or she, has a conflict of interest and if any restrictive interpretation is given to the word “person” used in Section 14(1)(j3) of the said Act, it would defeat the legislative intendment that encroachment, or unauthorized occupation must be viewed strictly. This view is taken in the case of Janabai vs. Additional Commissioner and others 2018(5) Mh.L.J. 921. This view is taken in the case of Janabai vs. Additional Commissioner and others 2018(5) Mh.L.J. 921. Relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court as they appear in paragraph 29 of the judgment are reproduced as under : “We may note here with profit that the word 'person' as used in Section 14(1)(j3) is not to be so narrowly construed as a consequence of which the basic issue of 'encroachment' in the context of disqualification becomes absolutely redundant. The legislative intendment, as we perceive, is that encroachment or unauthorized occupation has to viewed very strictly and Section 53, therefore, provides for imposition of daily fine. It is also to be borne in mind that it is the panchayat that has been conferred with the power to remove the encroachment. It is the statutory obligation on the part of the Panchayat to protect the interest of the properties belonging to it. If a member remains in occupation of an encroached property, he/she has a conflict of interest. If an interpretation is placed that it is the first encroacher or the encroachment made by the person alone who would suffer a disqualification, it would lead to an absurdity. The concept of purposive interpretation would impel us to hold that when a person shares an encroached property by residing there and there is continuance, he/she has to be treated as disqualified. Such an interpretation sub-serves the real warrant of the provision. Thus analysed, we are of the view that the decision in Sagar Pandurang Dhundare (supra) does not lay done the correct position of law and it is, accordingly, overruled.” 5. Upon consideration of facts of the present case, I find that this case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment of Janabai (supra), as reproduced above. In this regard, I must say that there is no dispute here that in the house constructed by husband of the petitioner on the Government land encroached upon by him, the petitioner resides with her husband. I am, therefore, of the view that decision of Janabai applies here and as such, I find that the learned Additional Collector has rightly held that respondent no.3 has incurred disqualification under Section 14(1) (j3) of the said Act. I am, therefore, of the view that decision of Janabai applies here and as such, I find that the learned Additional Collector has rightly held that respondent no.3 has incurred disqualification under Section 14(1) (j3) of the said Act. Consequently, I find that the impugned order which is contrary to the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court is patently illegal and, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. The Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28-03-2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, is hereby quashed and set aside and the order of the Additional Collector dated 02-08-2017, is restored and confirmed. 7. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.