Bombay High Court
Gajanan S/O Vilasrao Kalbande vs State Of Maharashtra, Ministry Of ... on 23 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:5742
1 32.wp.387.21-J.odt
N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 387 OF 2021
Shri Gajanan s/o. Vilasrao Kalbande,
Aged 40 years, Occ.: Business,
R/o. Aayshri Colony, Amravati,
Tehsil & District Amravati. ... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. State of Maharashtra,
In the Ministry of Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32
Through its Chief Secretary.
2. District Collector, Amravati.
3. Tehsildar, Warud,
Tehsil Warud, District Amravati.
4. Police Station Officer,
Warud, District Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Ramaa V. Kukday, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. M. Ukey, A.G.P. for Respondents/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 13.06.2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 23.06.2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner has approached this Court
challenging the order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the respondent No.3 in
Revenue Proceedings No./MNL-37/41/2020 of mouza Karwar Naka
2 32.wp.387.21-J.odt
under the provisions of Section 48(7) and (8) of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966 (hereafter referred to as "MLR Code") thereby
imposing penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- towards using truck for transportation
of sand and Rs.1,51,800/- for excavation of 10.12 brass of sand plus a
royalty of Rs.4000/- on the quantity of sand thereby imposing a total
penalty of Rs.3,55,800/- on the petitioner. The respondent No.3 i.e.
Tahsildar, Warud by order dated 17.12.2020 has also directed the
petitioner to furnish a personal bond of an amount equal to market value
of the seized truck, failing which, the seized truck will not be released.
3. By the Government Resolution dated 03.09.2019, the
guidelines and measures issued in policy including the terms and
conditions for excavation and transportation of sand by the lease holders.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 03.11.2020, the
petitioner sent his truck for transportation of sand. At around 4.00-4.30
a.m. on 04.11.2020, the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration
No.MH-27/X-7575 was intercepted by the respondent No.4 i.e. Police
Station Officer, Warud within the borders of Madhya Pradesh and found
that the said truck was allegedly transporting illegally excavated sand.
Upon enquiry by the respondent No.4, it was found that the said truck
was carrying sand beyond the permissible limit and thus, the truck as
well as sand stock came to be seized by the respondent No.4 without
3 32.wp.387.21-J.odt
drawing any spot panchanama and seizure panchanama. The vehicle
was not released.
5. As per provisions of Section 48(8) of the MLR Code, any
Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar and authorized by the
Collector can seize and confiscate any mineral, machinery and equipment
extracted unauthorizedly. Sub- section 2 of Section 48(8) prescribes that
such machinery or equipment or means of transport seized by the
Tahsildar is required to be produced before the Collector or such other
Officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector authorized by the
Collector on that behalf within 48 hours of such seizure, and such Officer
can release such machinery, equipment or means of transport on
payment by the owner thereto, such penalty as may be prescribed and on
furnishing personal bond.
6. By order dated 17.12.2020, passed by the respondent No.3
under the provision of Section 48(8) of the MLR Code thereby imposing
penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- for using truck for transportation of sand and
Rs.1,51,800/- for excavation of 10.12 brass of sand plus a royalty of
Rs.4000/- on the quantity of sand thereby imposing a total penalty of
Rs.3,55,800/- on the petitioner and also directed to furnish a personal
bond of an amount equal to the market value of the seized truck failing
which the seized truck will not be released. The order is without
jurisdiction.
4 32.wp.387.21-J.odt
7. The learned A.G.P. has opposed the petition stating that the
order passed by the respondent No.3 is correct.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the
matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.
Rumao Constructions and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
reported in 2010(4) ALL MR 591.
9. From the order dated 17.12.2020, it appears that on the
basis of the report of Police Inspector, Police Station, Warud, had given a
requisition to the Tahsildar to measure the sand, accordingly sand was
measured by the Talathi concerned, who found that the sand
admeasuring 10.12 brass was being transported. After referring the
Government Resolution, the penalty was imposed against the sand as
well as truck owner. As regards the powers of Police, the Division Bench
of this Court in Writ Petition No.8424/2018 (Gufran Khan Rahmatullah
Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) decided on 13.03.2019 has held
that the action of seizure by Police Station itself being without
jurisdiction, all further actions taken in the case by the Revenue Authority
would also have to be termed as the ones without jurisdiction.
10. Relying on the said judgment, this Court in Writ Petition
No.1081/2021 (Shri Shoeb Ahmad s/o. Ajaz Ahmad Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors) has observed that the police could not have seized
5 32.wp.387.21-J.odt
the vehicle under Section 48 of the MLR Code. Further the Tahsildar
could not have invoked Section 48(8) of the MLR Code to impose penalty
on the truck owner inasmuch as Section 48(8) provides that the
machinery/equipment used for unauthorized transportation of minerals,
if seized under Clause (1) of Section 48(8), the same shall be produced
before the Officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector within 48 hours
of such seizure, who may release the said vehicle/equipment to the
owner on penalty as may be prescribed.
11. Thus, the power to release the vehicle or impose penalty is
given to the officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector. In the
present case, the power has been exercised by the Tahsildar.
12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has correctly argued
that the Tahsildar could not have acted at the behest of police official and
could not have invoked power under Section 48(8) of the MLR Code.
The Tahsildar has not even considered the transit pass authorizing the
petitioner to transport the sand.
13. The order impugned is, therefore, liable to be quashed and
set aside. Hence, I pass the following order :
i. The Writ Petition is allowed.
6 32.wp.387.21-J.odt
ii. The order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the respondent
No.3 in Revenue Proceedings No./MNL-37/41/2020 is
quashed and set aside.
iii. The amount deposited by the petitioner before the
respondent No.3 shall be remitted to the petitioner
within four weeks from today.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/06/2025 15:36:23
