The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorization to be given by the Collector under section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is not regulated by the prescription contained in section 330-A.

JUDGMENT :

Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned AGP and the learned advocate for the contesting respondent waive service. At the request of both the sides all these three petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner in all these Writ Petitions is a company which has been allotted work of construction of different segments of Mumbai –Nagpur Express High Way popularly known as “Samruddhi Mahamarg”. The respondent Maharashtra State Road Corporation Limited is the Nodal Agency appointed by the Government for completing the project. In order to complete the project for the purpose of excavation of sand/murum/stone it entered into agreement with private persons. It applied for necessary permissions to the Collector for excavation and pursuant to the permission granted the work of excavation was undertaken.

3. It appears that the intervener who is an Ex-MLA of Badnapur filed a complaint alleging about rampant misuse of the permission granted to the petitioner company. He alleged that excess quantity was excavated and in some cases the excavation was undertaken even without any permission. It appears that pursuant to such grievance a committee was appointed by the Additional Collector which submitted a report by undertaking ETS measurement and in its report gave details about the illegal/unauthorized excavation and the quantity of the sand/murum/stone excavated in excess and illegally.

4. Pursuant to such report the Collector authorized the Tahsildar Badnapur to undertake a proceeding under section 48(7) and 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (herein after the MLRC). Show cause notices were issued to the petitioner. Observing that it had not responded, by the impugned orders respondent Tahsildar directed the petitioner Company to deposit various sums mentioned in the impugned orders ranging in crores of rupees pursuant to the provision under section 48(7).

5. The learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that it is challenging the action of Tahsildar primarily on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to initiate any proceeding and pass order under section 48(7) of the MLRC. He would submit that the provision empowers a Collector to exercise the power and also permits him to authorize any of his subordinate officers not below the rank of Tahsildar to exercise that power. However, according to the learned advocate such delegation of power by the Collector to the Tahsildar is regulated by the provision of section 330 A of the MLRC and which prescribes two conditions for such delegation, firstly, the approval of the State Government and, secondly, notification of such order in the Official Gazette. The learned advocate would further submit that there is absolutely no material to demonstrate that the Collector in the matter in hand had legally delegated his power under section 48(7) to the Tahsildar and for this reason alone the impugned orders of the Tahsildar having been passed without jurisdiction are liable to be quashed and set aside.

6. The learned advocate for the petitioner, pursuant to the basic objection being raised on behalf of the respondents regarding availability of alternate and efficacious remedy of preferring appeal under Chapter XIII of the MLRC, would cite several decisions of the Supreme Court governing the field and would submit that there are well recognized exceptions to the normal rule of invoking an alternate and efficacious remedy and the petitioner’s case fits in such exceptions. There is lack of jurisdiction with the Tahsildar. Principles of Natural Justice have not been followed since the inquiry has been conducted by visiting the spot behind petitioner’s back. These are such exceptions recognized in following decisions:

1. Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade, (1998) 8 SCC 1

2. Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corporation, (2003) 2 SCC 107

3. State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Gujaral Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499

4. State of Madhya