Bombay High Court
Ms Pingle Builder Pvt Ltd Through Its ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 11 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:21701-DB
1
10754.2024WP.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10754 OF 2024
M/s. Pingle Builders Pvt. Ltd.,
F-1/5, Zilla Parishad Complex,
Mahatma Gandhi Marg,
Nashik - 422 401
Through its Company Attorney
Shri Digamber Anandrao Pingle
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Upper Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Hon'ble Minister,
Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3. The Collector, Ahmednagar.
4. The District Mining Officer,
Collectorate, Ahmednagar.
5. The Tahsildar, Rahuri,
Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar.
..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Tushar C. Shinde h/f Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for the
petitioner
Mr. B.B. Bhise, AGP for the respondent/State.
...
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
RESERVED ON : 21st JULY, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 11th AUGUST, 2025
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner was allotted a work for, "provision
10754.2024WP.odt
of certain work, services for additional infrastructure at KK
Range (AF), Ahmednagar, vide work order dated 02.05.2012
issued by the Garrison Engineer (hereinafter referred to as
"GE", Military Engineer Services, Ahmednagar. The GE had
made correspondence with Collector, Ahmednagar requesting
to provide sand spots for excavation of sand for execution of
the said work. Vide letter dated 14.03.2013, six sand spots
were allotted for the work. Pursuant thereto, following orders
were issued allotting sand spots to the petitioner, without
auction, for execution of the aforesaid work :-
Sr. Date Description of Quantity Period
No. location
1. 21.03.2013 Sand Spot No.1 at 7380 brass 22.03.2013
village Aradgaon- to
Mula River Bed 31.07.2013
2. 25.04.2013 Sand Spot No.1 at 4800 brass 26.04.2013
village Chikalthan- to
Mula River Bed 31.07.2013
3. 25.04.2013 Sand Spot No.3 at 6750 brass 26.04.2013
village Chikalthan- to
Mula River bed 31.07.2013
2. In the Gram Sabha of village Kendal (Bk)
resolutions were passed on 03.04.2013 and 04.06.2013,
whereby it was decided that mining/excavation of sand
should not be allowed due to drought like situation and
adverse environmental effect. The first resolution dated
10754.2024WP.odt
03.04.2013 pertains to village Aradgaon. The second
resolution dated 04.06.2013 records that excavation/mining
of sand was already done at the sand deposit located within
the limits of Gram Panchayat, Kendal (Bk) upto village
Aradgaon, further excavation should not be allowed. The
Gram Panchayat had also made correspondence with Tahsildar
in this regard.
3. In this backdrop, the petitioner issued a
communication dated 21.06.2013 to the Collector,
Ahmednagar intimating that due to difficulty in making a
provision for approach road, the mining/excavation of sand at
sand spot nos.1 and 3 in village Chikalthan was not
commenced by the petitioner. The petitioner informed that it
had purchased private lands in order to make provision for
approach road and intending to start the work of
mining/excavation within a period of 4-5 days from the date
of issuance of communication dated 21.06.2013. The
petitioner also informed that work of illegal mining of sand
was going on at the sand spots and despite the complaints to
the Tahsildar, no action was being taken. In this
communication dated 21.06.2013, there is no reference to any
10754.2024WP.odt
adverse resolution by the Gram Panchayat or any act of
obstruction by villagers.
4. Similarly, the petitioner issued another
communication dated 06.07.2013 to the Collector informing
that due to problem in making the provision for approach
road as also due to serious objections by local villagers, work
of mining/excavation of sand from sand spot nos.1 and 3 at
Chikalthan had not commenced. The contention with respect
to alleged obstructions created by villagers is made for the
first time in this communication dated 06.07.2013.
5. As mentioned above, permission for mining of
sand was granted only upto 31.07.2013. In view of the above,
the revenue authorities had taken possession of both the sand
spots from the petitioner on 30.07.2013. Perusal of the letter
dated 03.08.2013 issued by the Tahsildar to the Collector
shows that the Revenue Inspector had taken possession of
both the sand spots on 30.07.2013 and further that
measurement with respect to excavation/mining of sand could
not be ascertained since the river bed was filled with water. It
10754.2024WP.odt
appears that Tahsildar had issued another communication
dated 10.02.2014 to the Collector stating that at Chikalthan
sand spot no.1, the petitioner had excavated 159 brass of sand
out of sanctioned 4800 brass and likewise at Chikalthan sand
spot no.3, the petitioner had excavated 800 brass of sand out
of sanctioned 6750 brass. Proposals were forwarded to the
State Government to consider refund of balance amount to the
petitioner or to allot alternate sand spots for equivalent
amount. These proposals are forwarded on 23.06.2015 and
21.08.2015.
6. Perusal of documents filed with the petition will
indicate that the petitioner made representations to the
Secretary in the Department of Revenue and Forest and the
Hon'ble Minister in the said Department for release of amount
on 26.02.2018 and 14.05.2018 respectively.
7. Respondent No.1 issued order dated 06.03.2019
disallowing the request for refund of amount on the ground
that the petitioner was not prevented by any Government
Officials from continuing with the work of mining/excavation
10754.2024WP.odt
and that for the entire period, the sand spots were in
possession of the petitioner and likewise there was no natural
calamity during the relevant time on account of which the
petitioner could not mine/extract the requisite quantity of
sand. It is observed that it was responsibility of the petitioner
to mine/excavate the requisite quantity of sand within the
stipulated period.
8. The petitioner has made application for review of
the aforesaid order dated 06.03.2019. Although, the date of
filing is not clear from the record, the application for review, is
dated 04.12.2023. The application for review is titled as
"Appeal". The said application is rejected vide order dated
07.06.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue). The
Hon'ble Minister has observed that the resolution of Gram
Sabha on which reliance was placed by the petitioner was not
pertaining to the sand spots in question, and therefore, the
contention regarding inability to mine/extract requisite
quantity of sand within the stipulated period was liable to be
rejected. It is also observed that in the earlier correspondence
made with the Collector, the petitioner had not referred to
obstruction from villagers as a ground for inability to
10754.2024WP.odt
undertake the work of mining. The Hon'ble Minister has
further observed that the petitioner had failed to make out
any case for review under Section 258 of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, in as much as, the petitioner failed to
point out any error apparent on the face of record and
likewise also failed to produce any additional evidence, which
could not be produced before passing of the order dated
06.03.2019. Thus, the application for review is rejected on
merits as well as on the ground that the application was
beyond the scope of Section 258 of M.L.R. Code.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner places
reliance on the Government Resolution dated 12.03.2013 and
particularly, upon clause 17C(15) of the said Government
Resolution to contend that the respondents are liable to
refund the amount of sand, which could not be excavated by
the petitioner since excavation could not be done due to
serious objections and obstructions by the villagers.
10. Perusal of the record will indicate that the
petitioner had addressed two letters to the Collector stating
10754.2024WP.odt
reasons for not commencing mining activity. The first letter
dated 21.06.2013 refers to problem of approach road for
accessing sand spot. This communication does not refer to any
resolution of Gram Sabha or any act by the villagers raising
objection to mining activity. It will be pertinent to state that as
per the petitioner mining activity had not commenced till
21.06.2013. Subsequent communication dated 06.07.2013
reiterates the problem of approach road and also refers to
objection raised by Gram Panchayat. However, perusal of the
Gram Sabha resolutions filed on record by the petitioner will
demonstrate that sand spots at village Chikalthan are not
specifically referred in the said resolutions. The said
resolutions are passed in Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat
Kendal (Bk). There is no averment in the petition or in the
review application that village Chikalthan is situated within
territorial limits of Gram Panchayat, Kendal (Bk).
11. In view of the aforesaid, there is no reason to take
different view of the matter than the view taken by the
Hon'ble Minister that Gram Sabha resolutions relied upon by
the petitioner do not appear to be pertaining to sand spots at
village Chikalthan.
10754.2024WP.odt
12. Finding by the Hon'ble Minister that the
petitioner had failed to make out any ground for review of the
earlier order under Section 258 of the M.L.R. Code is also
just, legal and proper. All the documents filed on record by the
petitioner are pertaining to period prior to 06.03.2019. The
petitioner has not produced any additional evidence in
support of its case. Likewise, the petitioner has failed to point
out any error apparent on the face of record in the earlier
order dated 06.03.2019. The finding by the Hon'ble Minister
that the application does not satisfy the ingredients of Section
258 of the M.L.R. Code does not warrant any interference.
13. Apart from this, it must also be stated that the
tenure of mining permission expired on 31.07.2013. The
possession of sand spots was returned by the petitioner on
30.07.2013. The two office notes forwarded by the office of
the Collector seeking appropriate instructions regarding
refund/allotment of alternate sand spot are dated 23.06.2015
and 21.08.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner has made
representations for refund on 26.02.2018 and 14.05.2018.
The initial order rejecting the request for refund is passed on
10754.2024WP.odt
06.03.2019. The application for review is dated 04.12.2023.
The date of filing of review is not discernible from record,
however, it has to be after 04.12.2023. There is delay of over
three years and nine months in filing review. It is merely
stated that review could not be filed due to Covid-19 lock-
down. Covid-19 lock-down was imposed in March, 2020. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has extended the period of limitation
on account of Covid-19 lock- down till 30.06.2022. Thus,
apart from the merits, the petition is also liable to be
dismissed on account of unexplained delay of around five
years in making initial representations for refund and
thereafter a period of over three years and nine months in
filing application for review. The petitioner has filed the
present petition on 22.08.2024 seeking refund with respect to
a transaction which had come to an end on 31.07.2013. The
petition is also liable to be dismissed on account of delay and
laches.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed
with no order as to costs.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.]
sga/2025
