Bombay High Court
Pradeep S/O. Rameshji Bhonde vs State Of Maha. Thr. The Collector ... on 4 April, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/3 0404WP1605.16-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1605 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Pradeep S/o Rameshji Bhonde, Aged about
21 years, Occ.-Business, R/o 155,
Pawanputra, Nagar, Dighori, District-Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector,
Nagpur.
ig 2) The Mandal Adhikari, Tahil Office, Umred,
District-Nagpur.
3) The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Umred, District-
Nagpur.
4) Sub-Division Officer, Umred, District-
Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. T. H. Bewali, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. N. R. Rode, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
V. M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 04.04.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2/3 0404WP1605.16-Judgment
2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the
respondent No.2-Circle Officer as also the other respondents to release
the truck of the petitioner bearing No.MH-40 Y-8190, as the same is
seized in contravention of the provisions of Section 48(8) of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
3. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the Circle
Officer did not have jurisdiction to seize the truck of the petitioner, as
under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, only an
officer, not below the rank of a Tahsildar, is empowered to seize the
vehicle. It is stated that since the impugned seizure is without
jurisdiction, the truck is liable to be released in favour of the petitioner.
It is stated that the issue involved in this writ petition stands answered
in favour of the petitioner by the judgment, dated 31/03/2016 in Writ
Petition No.1811 of 2016 (Jamil Ahemad S/o Shakeel Ahemad v. State of
Maharashtra and others).
4. Shri Rode, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondents, does not dispute that the truck
has been seized in the instant case by the Circle Officer. It is further not
disputed that the Circle Officer is an officer, below the rank of the
Tahsildar.
5. On hearing the parties, it appears that the impugned order
of seizure is bad in law. It is clear from a reading of the provisions of
Section 48(8) of the Code that only an officer, who is not below the
3/3 0404WP1605.16-Judgment
rank of a Tahsildar, is empowered to seize the vehicle in which the
mineral is carried illegally. In the instant case, admittedly the seizure of
the vehicle is effected by the Circle Officer, who is admittedly below the
rank of the Tahsildar. In this background, the impugned action cannot
be sustained.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The respondent-Circle Officer and the other respondents are
directed to release the seized truck bearing No.MH-40 Y-8190 in favour
of the petitioner within a period of three days. Rule is made absolute in
the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
