1

wp1269.22.J.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO.1269 OF 2022

Ajay s/o Rameshrao Golait

Aged about 31 years,

Occupation: Business,

R/o Bhosa, Bharat Nagri

Byepass Road, Yavatmal,

Tah. and District Yavatmal.

....... PETITIONER

...V E R S U S...

1.

State of Maharashtra, through its

Secretary, Revenue and Forest

Department, Mantralaya,

Mumbai-32.

2.

The Additional Collector, Yavatmal,

District Yavatmal.

3.

The Sub Divisional Officer,

Ralegaon, Tah. Ralegaon,

District Yavatmal.

4.

The Tahsildar, Kalamb,

Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Yavatmal.

....... RE

SPONDENT

S

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. A. R. Ingole, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. S. M. Ukey, Addl. GP for Respondents 1 to 4/State.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM:

ROHIT B. DEO

, J.

DATE:

8 ^th MARCH,

20

22

.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is

heard finally with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the

parties.

2

wp1269.22.J.odt

2.

The petitioner is assailing the order dated 24.02.2022

rendered by the Tahsildar, Kalamb, District Yavatmal. The order

impugned is in two parts.

3.

The petitioner allegedly excavated and transported

sand illegally. The Tahsildar was pleased to act under the

provisions of Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue

Code, 1966 (Code) and saddled the petitioner with royalty and

penalty of Rs.2,10,600/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand Six

Hundred).

4.

The other part of the order impugned is the

imposition of penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) in

purported exercise of power under Section 48(8) of the Code for

illegal use of vehicle for transportation of sand.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ingole

submits that in so far as royalty and penalty on transportation of

sand is concerned, the petitioner is not pressing the challenge and

shall comply with the order impugned within the next seven days.

However, Mr. Ingole points out that the other part of the order

which imposes penalty as regards the allegedly illegal vehicular

use for transportation of the minor mineral, is without jurisdiction

3

wp1269.22.J.odt

as held by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.7165/2018

(Harihar s/o Mahadev Puri Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.)

dated 15.03.2019. The relevant paragraph of the said decision

reads thus:

“10. The third submission of the learned

counsel for the petitioner is that by the

impugned order penalty in respect of illegal

transport of the sand as well as the means of

convenience employed for such illegal transport

has been imposed under Section 48(7) by the

Tahsildar, but it is not permissible for him to do

so. Upon perusal of subsections (7) and (8) of

Section 48 we find that there is substance in the

argument of learned counsel for the petitioner.

What can be imposed by way of a penalty by the

Tahsildar by invoking his power under

sub-section (7) of Section 48 of MLR Code is

only that penalty which is for illegal

transportation of sand only to the extent of five

times of the market value of the minerals

transported in addition to the amount of royalty

and nothing more. But, in the present case the

penalty imposed by the Tahsildar is of composite

nature, one for the transportation of the minerals

as such and the other for the user of the vehicle

in question for such transport. For the later part

of the offence, the penalty can be imposed only

by the Collector or any officer not below the rank

of a Deputy Collector specifically authorized in

this behalf by the Collector himself. This is under

Section 48(8)(2) of the MLR Code. It is here that

the impugned order has made itself vulnerable to

law and to this extent only, the impugned order

deserves to be quashed and set aside.”

4

wp1269.22.J.odt

6.

I