IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10222 OF 2022 Ankush Kashinath Mhaske Age : 44 years, Occ: Agril and Business R/o. Chombhut, Tal. Parner, District- Ahmednagar ...Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Principal Secretary SNEHA Revenue and Forest Department, NITIN CHAVAN Mantralaya, Mumbai.

Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN 2. The Hon’ble Minister, Date: 2025.04.30

19:35:30 +0530 Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

3. The Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

4. The Collector, Pune, Taluka and District Pune. 5. The Tahsildar, Junnar, Taluka Junnar, District Pune ...Respondents ****

Mr. Parag Tilak, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. P.G. Sawant , Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.

1 to 5/State.

****

CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR AND M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.

DATE : 30^th APRIL 2025 JUDGMENT (Per M. M. Sathaye, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5/State waives service. Heard finally by consent.

2. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 04.04.2022 issued by the Respondent No.3, by which the request of the Petitioner for refund of amount of un-excavated sand, is rejected.

3. The case of the Petitioner in short is as under.

3.1 In November 2015, the Petitioner was declared as successful bidder for sand excavation in 5 villages on banks of river Kukadi. On 04.01.2016, the Petitioner addressed a letter to Respondent No.4 stating that there are newspaper reports about opposition of villagers for sand excavation and since the Petitioner had not taken possession of the sand-ghats, a request was made to check the situation. The Respondent-Collector, in turn addressed a letter to Respondent No.5 (Tahsildar, Junnar) for inquiry and report. On 07.01.2016, the sand- ghats were allotted to the Petitioner after deposit of offset price and agreement was executed and the Petitioner was directed to take possession of the sand-ghats through the Tahsildar.

3.2 The Petitioner, thereafter issued a letter to the Collector for grant of permission to use suction pump and Poclain machine. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Senior Scientist, Groundwater Survey and Development, Pune has issued a letter dated 11.01.2016 mentioning that there is 8 to 10 meters of water in river Kukadi and therefore usage of suction pump was recommended. The concerned Tahsildar had asked report from the Circle Officer, which was submitted, indicating that out of 5 villages, 4 villages have taken negative stand towards sand excavation and only village Sultanpur was ready. The Tahsildar in turn submitted report to the Collector indicating the said position. In February, 2016, the Petitioner again requested for permission to use suction pump.

3.3 Finally on 02.03.2016, the Petitioner took possession of the sand- ghats for the purpose of excavation. In June 2016, the Petitioner reminded the Collector that till date, permission for use of suction pump is not accorded and therefore the Petitioner was not able to utilise full potential of sand-ghats. According to the Petitioner, from March 2016 to September 2016, he excavated only 7298 brass of sand out of permitted 10,570 brass with the available aid of workers. Ultimately, after the period of allotment was over, the Petitioner handed over the possession of the sand-ghats to the Government in the presence of the Circle Officer, Talathi and Panchas. The Petitioner thereafter demanded refund for un-excavated 3272 brass of sand. On 25.06.2018, the District Collector, rejected the request for refund.

3.4 The Petitioner approached Respondent No.1/State with the same request, however by order dated 17.07.2019, the concerned Additional Secretary rejected the claim of the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed review under Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966