( 1 ) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is holding the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 138 was served with the notice by the DDO dated 14. 12. 1993, whereby he was called upon to show cause as to why the maximum fine should not be imposed for un-authorised excavation of morum from the agricultural land and thereby consequential breach of the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as ?the Code? ). The petitioner submitted reply to the show-cause notice on 4. 1. 1994 and contended, inter alia, that they are having two quarries for salt in the nearby area and, therefore, for laying down morum on the road for those factory of the salt, the morum was used. It was also stated that the petitioner has also not engaged in any construction activity or construction of dam. If anybody else has excavated morum from the agricultural land they were not aware of that. The District Collector ultimately on 25. 5. 1994 passed the order, observing that thee is un-authorised excavation and the TDO has recommended imposition of fine of 40 times revenue, therefore, he has imposed the fine of 40 times revenue and for the whole, the total calculation comes to Rs. 1,03,603/ -. The petitioner carried the matter in revision before the State Government being No. 14/1994 and the State Government as per the order dated 11. 1. 1996, dismissed the revision. Under these circumstances, the present petition.

( 2 ) HEARD Mr. Mankad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Barot for Mr. Munshaw, learned Counsel for the District Panchayat and Mr. Soni, learned AGP for the respondent State Government.

( 3 ) MR. MANKAD, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised the contention that the mandatory procedure for approving the case permitting cross-examination, etc. , was not followed and in support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of this Court in case of ?patel Devabhai Bhawanbhai v. Harijan Merabhai Savabhai and Ors. ?, reported in 1983 GLH, UL 86, which is delivered in view of another decision of this Court in case of ?jhala Mansangji Kalyansangji and Ors. v. Jhala Mahobatsang Madarsang and Anr. ?, reported 1982 GLH, 592 and, therefore, he submitted that the order is in breach of the principles of natural justice and mandatory procedure was not followed and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

( 4 ) THE perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Taluka Development Officer shows that the rojkam was drawn by Talati-cum-Mantri and the report was submitted by Talati to TDO in which it was stated that there is unauthorised excavation of morum from the land admeasuring 4 acres and 0 gunthas and the depth of the field was lower down by 3 mtrs. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mankad did submit that the rojkam and the report, both were submitted behind the back of the petitioner and no copy of the said documents was supplied to the petitioner, nor the petitioner was given opportunity to cross-examine and, therefore, the same may not be considered as an evidence before the TDO. I am afraid such contention can be accepted so as to canvass the order as in breach of the principles of natural justice. In response to the show-cause notice, the petitioner did submit his reply. At no point of time, neither in the reply the petitioner demanded for supply of such documents, nor was the demand made on behalf of the petitioner to cross-examine any officer. If the demand was not made, then in that case there was no question of supplying such documents, nor was there any question for cross-examination. Therefore, the order cannot be said as in breach of the natural justice or without following the mandatory procedure. It may be recorded that the powers are for holding summary inquiry. It is true that there may not be any straight-jacket formula for the scope and ambit of such summary inquiry and it may vary from facts to facts. Had it been a case where the petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document