Bombay High Court
Shri. Sanjay S/O. Ranchandra ... vs The Collector, Yavatmal on 23 March, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp3925.15 & others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
(I) WRIT PETITION NO.3925 OF 2015
Ravindra s/o Bapurao Dube,
aged 33 years, occupation :
agriculturist and business,
r/o Chikhalgaon, Tahsil Wani,
District Yavatmal. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) The Collector, District
Yavatmal.
2) Sub-Divisional Officer, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
3) The Tahsildar, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
4) Naib Tahsildar, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
5) Revenue Inspector (Mandal
Adhikari), Tahsil Karyalaya,
Wani, Tahsil Wani, District
Yavatmal.
6) The Talathi, Village Wani,
Taluq Wani, District Yavatmal. ... Respondents
-----------------
Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents.
----------------
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:06:38 :::
2 wp3925.15 & others
(II) WRIT PETITION NO.3630 OF 2015
Shri Sanjay s/o Ramchandra
Junghari, aged about 43 years,
occupation : agriculturist and
business, r/o near Ranganath Swami
Mandir, Nagar Parishad School No.4,
Prabhag No.3, Wani, Tahsil Wani,
District Yavatmal. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) The Collector, District
Yavatmal.
2) Sub-Divisional Officer, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
3) The Tahsildar, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
4) Naib Tahsildar, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
5) Revenue Inspector (Mandal
Adhikari), Tahsil Karyalaya,
Wani, Tahsil Wani, District
Yavatmal.
6) The Talathi, Village Sawargaon,
Taluq Wani, District Yavatmal. ... Respondents
--------------
Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents.
---------------
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:06:38 :::
3 wp3925.15 & others
(III) WRIT PETITION NO.3631 OF 2015
1) Shri Ravi s/o Gulabrao Sarode,
aged 32 years,
occupation : business,
r/o Sadhankarwadi,
Chikhalgaon, Wani, Tahsil :
Wani, District Yavatmal.
2) Pravin s/o Gulabrao Sarode,
aged 36 years, occupation :
business, r/o Akshara Family
Garden Restaurant, Maregaon,
Tahsil Maregaon, District Yavatmal. ... Petitioners
- Versus -
1) The Collector, District
Yavatmal.
2) Sub-Divisional Officer, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
3) The Tahsildar, Maregaon,
District Yavatmal.
4) Naib Tahsildar, Maregaon,
District Yavatmal.
5) Revenue Inspector (Mandal
Adhikari), Tahsil Karyalaya,
Maregaon, Tahsil Maregaon,
District Yavatmal.
6) The Talathi, Village Maregaon,
Taluq Maregaon, District
Yavatmal. ... Respondents
--------------
Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for petitioners.
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:06:38 :::
4 wp3925.15 & others
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents.
---------------
(IV) WRIT PETITION NO.3926 OF 2015
Shri Sunil Pralhadrao Yemulwar,
aged about 48 years,
occupation : agriculturist and
business, r/o In front of Narayan
Niwas, Wani, Tahsil Wani,
District Yavatmal. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) The Collector, District
Yavatmal.
2) Sub-Divisional Officer, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
3) The Tahsildar, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
4) Naib Tahsildar, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
5) Revenue Inspector (Mandal
Adhikari), Tahsil Karyalaya,
Wani, Tahsil Wani, District
Yavatmal.
6) The Talathi, Village Sawarla,
Tahsil Wani, District Yavatmal. ... Respondents
--------------
Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents.
---------------
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:06:38 :::
5 wp3925.15 & others
(V) WRIT PETITION NO.3929 OF 2015
1) Shri Ravi Ramchandra Junghari,
aged about 31 years,
occupation : agriculturist and
business, r/o behind Ranganath Swami
Mandir, Nagar Parishad School No.4,
Prabhag No.3, Wani, Tahsil Wani,
District Yavatmal.
2) Satish N. Pimple, aged about 48
years, occupation : Government
Contractor, r/o Nandepara Road,
Laxminagar, Wani, District
Yavatmal. ... Petitioners
- Versus -
1) The Collector, District
Yavatmal.
2) Sub-Divisional Officer, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
3) The Tahsildar, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
4) Naib Tahsildar, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
5) Revenue Inspector (Mandal
Adhikari), Tahsil Karyalaya,
Wani, Tahsil Wani, District
Yavatmal.
6) The Talathi, Village Sawarla,
Taluq Wani, District Yavatmal. ... Respondents
--------------
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:06:38 :::
6 wp3925.15 & others
Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents.
---------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 23, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) :
Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of Adv. Samarth for the petitioners and
Shri Fulzele, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
the respondents.
2) Following quantity of sand is seized from the
petitioners by the respondents under Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966 :
Writ Petition No.3925/2015 - 10 brass
Writ Petition No.3630/2015 - 150 brass
Writ Petition No.3631/2015 - 250 brass
Writ Petition No.3926/2015 - 110 brass
Writ Petition No.3929/2015 - 100 brass
The petitioners question it.
7 wp3925.15 & others
3) Adv. Samarth submits that petitioners have
purchased said sand for constructing their own
buildings and the same was stocked on private lands.
Without any opportunity, same has been seized. He
further contends that though seizure is stated to be
under Section 48(7) or 48(8) of Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966, no order to that effect has been
served upon any of the petitioners and the stand of the
petitioners that they have purchased it, therefore, has
not been evaluated. He points out that receipts in
token of payment of royalty of said sand were produced
and those receipts are not found to be bogus by the
respondents. As such, sand does not vest in State
Government and hence, Section 48(7) or 48(8) of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 has no
application. He, therefore, seeks direction to
respondents to release the sand forthwith as
construction work of the petitioners is held up.
4) Shri Fulzele, learned Assistant Government
8 wp3925.15 & others
Pleader for respondents, is relying upon reply-affidavit.
Apart from Section 48(7) and 48(8) of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, 1966, he draws support from
Rule 71 of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction
(Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013. He states
that even collection or stocking of sand is prohibited
and, therefore, petitioners must produce a licence
authorizing them to stock the sand. He invites our
attention to reply to urge that an objection that
petitions are premature has been specifically raised.
The Authorities have to pass orders and thereafter only
a challenge of this nature can be entertained by this
Court. He contends that sites at which sand was found
stored did not belong to any of the petitioners and in
any case, no construction work was seen anywhere.
He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petitions.
5) Adv. Samarth in reply submits that provisions
of Rule 71 or 2013 Rules mentioned supra do not
envisage a consumer or purchaser, who buys sand for
9 wp3925.15 & others
erecting house or other similar structures. No licence is
required for that purpose. He further points out that
only in Writ Petition No. 3925/2015, sand is allegedly
found to be stored on site not belonging to petitioner,
but on the site, which is just opposite to the residence
of petitioner. In all other cases, according to
Adv. Samarth, sand is found on sites belonging to
respective petitioners. He invites our attention to the
fact that petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 3926/2015 and
3929/2015 required sand in huge quantity as they are
Contractors by business. He further invites our
attention to the fact that petitioner no.1 in Writ Petition
No.3929/2015 is a supplier of building material. He
adds that as sand does not vest in State Government,
recourse to provisions of Section 48(7) and 48(8) of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 or even to
Rule 71 of the 2013 Rules mentioned supra, in the
present circumstances, is unwarranted.
6) After hearing respective Counsel for the
10 wp3925.15 & others
parties, we find that Rule 71 of 2013 Rules mentioned
supra stipulates that no person other than a quarry
permit or quarry lease holder shall stock, sell or offer
for sale any minor mineral mentioned in Scheduled I in
any place in State except under a dealer's licence. The
Rule prima facie may not apply if a person stocks sand
for raising construction of his own house.
ig Similarly,
provisions of Section 48(7) and 48(8) of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 show that
same envisage finding of a stock of sand, right to which
vests in State. If right in such stock does not vest in
State, those provisions cannot apply. Here petitioners
have shown that stock of sand purchased by them was
not belonging to State Government as royalty was paid.
The petitioners have also attempted to plead that they
have purchased it from a duly licenced sand excavator.
7) The respondents have come up with a case
that they did not find any construction undertaken by
the petitioners. However, the stand is not very clear.
11 wp3925.15 & others
8) As there is no express order passed either
seizing or confiscating the sand, we cannot at this
juncture conclusively observe that a particular provision
of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 has been or
has not been violated. The said aspect needs to be
looked into by the respondents by giving petitioners
adequate opportunity. All the petitioners have made
representations and those representations have
remained pending for quite sometime. In fact, the
petitions before this Court are pending since June 2015.
9) In this situation, we direct petitioners to
appear before respective Tahsildar on 30/3/2016 and to
abide by his further instructions in the matter. The said
Tahsildar shall pass appropriate orders in this respect
within a period of four weeks. If it is found that sand
could not have been seized, same shall be released to
the petitioners within next one week.
12 wp3925.15 & others
10) Thus, keeping all rival contentions open and
with this arrangement, we dispose of the petitions. No
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
