JUDGMENT A S Chandurkar, J. -Rule heard finally in view of notice for final disposal issued earlier. The order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner for the post of Sarpanch is under challenge. 2. The petitioner had filed her nomination form for contesting the elections to the post of Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Ramnagar, Tahsil Samudrapur, District Wardha. Said nomination form was rejected on the ground that in view of the documents filed along with an objection raised to the nomination form, the petitioner and her family members had encroached upon the Government land. Being aggrieved by such rejection of the nomination form, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Dr Anjan De, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under provisions of Section 14 (1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short, the said Act) and in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Janabai v. Additional Commissioner and ors., (2018) 5 MhLJ 921 , the requirement was that the encroachment should be continuing. The nomination form of the petitioner had been rejected merely by relying upon some orders passed with regard to alleged encroachment said to be committed by the petitioner''s husband in the year 2010 and onwards. There being no material on record to indicate such continuing encroachment as on the date when the nomination form was filled, its rejection was not called. He further submitted by relying upon the provisions of Rule 11 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Election Rules, 1959 (for short, the said Rules) that there was no written authorisation given to the objector for remaining present before the Returning Officer and therefore such objection raised by the respondent No.2 was not liable to be entertained. It was thus submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside as the nomination form had been rejected even without holding a summary enquiry as contemplated by Rule 11(2) of the said Rules. 4. Shri. A. C. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed aforesaid submission. According to him it was clearly established from the documents filed along with objection as raised to the petitioner''s nomination form that the petitioner continued residing in House No.225. It was clearly found by the Authorities that earlier the petitioner''s husband had committed encroachment and the same had not been removed. According to him it was clearly established from the documents filed along with objection as raised to the petitioner''s nomination form that the petitioner continued residing in House No.225. It was clearly found by the Authorities that earlier the petitioner''s husband had committed encroachment and the same had not been removed. As it was found by the Competent Authority that the petitioner''s husband was guilty of committing encroachment for which he was removed from the post of Member of the Grampanchayat, the petitioner was also disqualified from contesting the elections. It was then submitted that since the respondent No.2 was duly authorised to raise an objection, the same was accordingly done before the Returning Officer. Moreover, in the light of the earlier adjudication there was no question of any further summary enquiry being held. Hence the impugned order was liable to be maintained. Ms. M. S. Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 also supported the impugned order. 5. On 15/03/2019 after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner an ad interim order was passed directing acceptance of the nomination form of the petitioner making the same subject to the outcome of the present writ petition. The provisions of Section 14 (1)(j-3) of the said Act have been considered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Janabai (supra). It has been held therein that the term "person" would include legal heirs of the encroacher who continue to occupy Government land. Emphasis was laid on encroachment and continued encroachment. In other words, it was necessary to consider whether on the date of filing of the nomination form the petitioner had committed encroachment or whether the encroachment made earlier continued to exist. Prima facie, it is seen that along with the objection raised to the nomination form of the petitioner various documents pertaining to disqualification proceedings initiated against the husband of the petitioner were placed on record. The same include an order passed by the Additional Collector dated 27/01/2012 as well as an order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 04/08/2012 holding encroachment being committed by the petitioner''s husband. Besides these orders there was nothing on record to indicate the aspect of "continued encroachment". The Returning Officer in the impugned order has observed that in view of the documents filed along with the objection, the nomination form was being rejected. Besides these orders there was nothing on record to indicate the aspect of "continued encroachment". The Returning Officer in the impugned order has observed that in view of the documents filed along with the objection, the nomination form was being rejected. It is prima facie found that the nomination form has been rejected only by relying upon the adjudication in the year 2012. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition a statement has been made on oath that the petitioner is neither concerned with the said encroachment nor is she continuing or enjoying the said encroachment. There is nothing further on record to counter this assertion as made. It would be a matter of evidence that would require adjudication as to whether on the date of filing of the nomination form the petitioner had committed encroachment as contemplated by Section 14(1)(j-3) of the said Act. At this stage such inquiry is not permissible nor possible. 6. By taking a prima facie view of the matter it is found that rejection of the nomination form of the petitioner was not justified on the basis of the documents filed along with the objection. The said aspect would require adjudication in accordance with law. Hence the order dated 11/03/2019 passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner is set aside. In terms of the ad interim order dated 15/03/2019 the petitioner is free to contest the said elections. However, it is open for any aggrieved party to challenge the election of the petitioner/acceptance of the petitioner''s nomination form after the elections are held. If such challenge is raised the present adjudication shall not come in the way of such proposed challenge. The points in that regard are kept open. With these observations, Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.