R.M. Borde, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for respective parties.

2. In this group of petitions, petitioners are objecting to the orders passed by the Tahsildar or any other revenue officials directing imposition of penalty for unauthorised transportation or excess quantity of minor mineral or transportation of minor mineral without valid permit or transportation of minor mineral on the basis of invalid and fabricated permit. Apart from this, the orders, directing imposition of penalty in respect of vehicles, is also a matter of challenge.

3. Primary objection of the petitioners, in this petition, is in respect of applicability of Section 48(7) and (8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short “Code of 1966).

4. Relying upon the judgment in the matter of Vijay Dashrath Shirbhate Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2010(1) All M.R. 842, it is contended that since the minor mineral i.e. sand is excavated with lawful authority, provisions of Section 48(7) are not attracted. Petitioners contend that it is not permissible for the Tahsildar or any other revenue official to impose penalty in respect of