Ashok S/O Sitaram Thool vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9529 Bom

                                                                                                13-WP3839.22.odt
                                                            1/2



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 3839 OF 2022
                                     Ashok Sitaram Thool
                                            -Vs.-
                              State of Maharashtra and another
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                                     Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Mr.Taranjeet H. Bewali, counsel for the petitioner.
                                         Ms. M.A.Barabde, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2.



                                                 CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE : 20.09.2022

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondents.

2. A short point is raised on behalf of the petitioner in the present case. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar imposing penalty on the petitioner by invoking section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, is wholly without jurisdiction.

3. It is submitted that perusal of the impugned order itself would show that the penalty has been imposed on alleged illegal transportation/storage of gitti (metal stone).

4. This Court in number of judgments has held that gitti is not a minor mineral and that therefore, section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 could not be invoked by the Tahsildar for exercising power

KHUNTE 13-WP3839.22.odt

and imposing penalty.

5. In the case of Sanjay S/o Bhauraoji Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra and another, decided on 12/07/2022 in Writ Petition No.3851 of 2021, this Court has taken note of earlier judgments in the case of Deepak Babanrao Zode v. State of Maharashtra and others, i.e. order dated 30/06/2022 passed in Writ Petition No.3547/2022 and in the case of Subhash s/o Yadavrao Matte v. State of Maharashtra and others, i.e. order dated 22/03/2022, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.400 of 2022, wherein in identical circumstances, this Court held that exercise of power by the Tahsildar was wholly without jurisdiction.

6. The respondents in this case have not disputed the fact that the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar was in the context of gitti as noted above, i.e. metal stone, which is not a minor mineral, clearly showing that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction.

7. Hence, on this short ground, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28/01/2022, passed by the respondent-Tahsildar is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.

JUDGE

Signed By:GHANSHYAM S KHUNTE

Signing Date:21.09.2022 10:17

KHUNTE