ORDER :

R.K. DESHPANDE, J.:

1. Writ Petition No.7056 of 2018 challenges the order dated 26-9-2018 passed by the respondent No.2-Additional Collector, Chandrapur in exercise of his power conferred by sub-section (7) of Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 imposing penalty of Rs.2,13,44,400/- for unauthorizedly extracting 2,541 brass of sand from unallotted Survey Nos.159, 158 and 157 of Mouza Halda.

2. Writ Petition No.4268 of 2018 challenges the order dated 12-2-2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Warora seizing and confiscating the vehicles – Tractor No.MH-34L-7064 and Trolley No.MH-34L-7065 on 13-12-2017 under sub-section (8) of Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for illegal and unauthorized transportation of 100 brass of sand without permit. The order imposes the fine of Rs.2,00,000/- for release of the vehicles and requires the petitioner to execute a bond. Different views :

3. Relying upon the decision of the learned Single Judge [Shri S.G. Gupte, J.] passed on 23-8-2017 on the preliminary objection raised in Writ Petition No.4401 of 2017 [M/s. Bhandara Traders, Bhandara, through its Proprietor v. State of Maharashtra and others], which follows the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh, reported in AIR 1964 SC 260, Shri Sunil Manohar, the learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Advocate Ms Ramaa Kukday for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7056 of 2018, has urged that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge. According to him, the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code cannot be considered as a special statute in terms of the third proviso below Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 so as to exclude it from the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge.

4. Relying upon the referral order dated 31-7-2018 passed by the another learned Single Judge (Shri S.B. Shukre, J.), which relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J. Bahadur and others, reported in (1981) 1 SCC 315, and Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank and another, reported in (2000) 4 SCC 406, it is urged by the learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Patil that the provision of sub-section (8) of Section 48 under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code can be considered as a special statute and, therefore, in terms of the third proviso below Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, the matter is excluded from the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge and, therefore, it is required to be decided by the Division Bench. Reference :

5. The present reference to a Larger Bench arises out of the disagreement expressed in respect of the view that “The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is not a special statute and, therefore, the matter is to be dealt with by the Single Judge”. Though the referral order does not express any opinion as to whether the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is a special statute or not, an opinion is expressed that the provision of sub-section (8) of Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code empowering the Collector to impose the penalty or seize and confiscate the mineral, machinery or vehicle can be described as a special statute within the meaning of the third proviso and, therefore, it excludes the jurisdiction of the Single Judge and confers the jurisdiction upon the Division Bench to hear and dispose of such writ petition.

Questions referred for consideration :

6. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions on the preliminary issue, the following two questions are referred for the decision of this Larger Bench by the referral order dated 31-7-2018 expressing disagreement with the view taken by the another learned Single Judge in M/s. Bhandara Traders’s case, cited supra :

“1. Whether the order passed by a Revenue Officer in exercise of his power under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code could be considered to be an order passed in a speci