SHITAL ENTERPRISES THROUGH PROPRIETOR SHITAL SACHIN PATILversusMAYUR BHANGALE

2026:BHC-AUG:41359
                                                  1                      958-CP-373-2026.odt




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 958 CONT. PETITION NO. 373 OF 2026
                                                 IN
                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 6030 OF 2026

                      Shital Enterprises Through Proprietor Shital Sachin Patil
                                              VERSUS
                                          Mayur Bhangale
                                               …..
             Mr. Bhausaheb Sadashivrao Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
             Mr. R. R. Tandale, AGP for Respondent – State.
                                                …..

                                     CORAM        : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

                                     DATE         : 04 SEPTEMBER 2026

             PER COURT :


             1.        The present petition is filed attributing non-compliance of the

             order dated 7/7/2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.8030 of

             2026, whereby 16 Vehicles seized by the respondent/Tahsildar under

             Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code Act, 1966 (for

             short “the MLR Code”) were ordered to be released. The Tahsildar had

             passed an order imposing penalty on the minerals in exercise of powers

             under Section 48(7) of the MLR Code. In addition to the order passed

             under Section 48(7), an order was also passed purportedly in exercise of

             powers under Section 48(8), seizing the vehicles. The action of the

             Tahsildar was impugned by the Contempt Petitioner by filing Writ Petition

             No.6030 of 2026.

             Kiran Kawre
                                            2                           958-CP-373-2026.odt


2.        This Court found that the order imposing penalty was within the

jurisdiction of the Tahsildar under Section 48(7) of the MLR Code.

However, the action of confiscation/seizure of the vehicles was found to

be without jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court allowed the petition to the

extent of prayer for realizing the vehicles.


3.        This Court was to please to quash and set aside the action under

Section 48(8) of the MLR Code, since it was found to be without

jurisdiction. Relevant paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the judgment dated 7

July 2026 passed in Writ Petition No.6030 of 2026 read as under:


              “8.   In that view of the matter, keeping liberty with respondents
              to take action in accordance with law, impugned order is quashed
              and set aside to the extent of imposition of penalty of
              Rs.1,67,70,000/- towards unauthorized use of vehicle and
              equipments.

              9.    Needless to state here that, competnet Revenue Authority is
              free to initiate appropriate proceeding against petitioner without
              impeded by present order. In resut, Writ Petition is partly allowed
              in terms of prayer Clause (B) with liberty in favour of respondents
              to take up appropriate action in accordance with law.”



4.        Since the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B), the

same is reproduced herebelow:


              “B)   The Hon’ble High Court may pleased to issue writ of
              certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order thereby
              quashed and set aside the impugned order of penalty dtd.

Kiran Kawre
                                           3                           958-CP-373-2026.odt


              02/06/2026 issued by respondent no.4 and further direct the
              respondent authorities to release the Poclains bearing no. 1. TATA
              HITACHI Machine No. THEDC0L0PPPPPP241 2. HYUNDAI
              R215LC-7 Excavator no. H603D02552, 3. TATA HITACHI EX 200
              SUPER Machine No. S200-22823. 4. HYUNDAI R210 Hydraulic
              Excavator Machine No. N601D05010, 5. HYUNDAI R210-7
              Machine No.601D00896, 6. HYUNDAI R210-7 hydraulic excavator
              Machine No. N601D04037, 7. HYUNDAI R215L hydraulic
              Excavator Machine No. N635d02139, 8. HYUNDAI R215 Smart
              Plus hydraulic excavator Machine No. HYNDN633KE0070387, 9.
              TATA HITACHI EX210 Super material no.S210-40216 and 10.
              HYUNDAI R215 Smart Plut hydraulic excavator Machine
              No.N640D00231 and vehicles / dumper bearing registration no.
              MH-15-GV—5155, MH-15-GV-8455, MH-15-JC5155, MH-15-EG-
              4755, MH-21-BG-5588, MH-48-AG5022 detailed under order of
              penalty by them without further delay and for that purpose issue
              necessary orders.”



5.        The observations in the order will demonstrate that liberty was

granted to the Competent Authority to take appropriate action under

Section 48(8) of the MLR Code.


6.        After the order dated 7/7/2026 came to be passed, orders under

Section 48(8) of the MLR Code imposing penalty as contemplated under

the said provision were passed with respect to all the 16 vehicles. The

Sub-Divisional Officer has imposed penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- for each

dumper and Rs.7,50,000/- for each poclain machine. The orders are

dated 22 July 2026, 3 August 2026 and 6 August 2026.


Kiran Kawre
                                       4                         958-CP-373-2026.odt


7.        The contention of the petitioner is that the vehicles seized were

ordered to be released forthwith and, despite this, the said vehicles were

illegally withheld in defiance of the order passed by this Court till the

date of passing of the orders under Section 48(8). It is therefore

contended that the action of withholding custody of the vehicles amounts

to contempt of the said judgment and order dated 7 July 2026 passed by

this Court.


8.        The Sub-Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar have filed their replies

in the contempt petition. Both authorities have initially tendered an

unconditional apology in their affidavits and thereafter have put forth

their stance with respect to the allegations made in the contempt petition.

It is stated that pursuant to order passed by this Court when petitioner

was called upon to produce ownership documents, it was revealed that

he is not the owner of these vehicles. The Sub-Divisional Officer collected

the address of the owners of the vehicles involved and issued notices for

the action contemplated under Section 48(8). After issuing notices and

considering the replies, orders under Section 48(8) came to be passed.

The order passed by this Court is dated 7/7/2026. Perusal on orders

passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 48(8) will indicate

that the notices were issued shortly and thereafter and the orders were

passed. The Sub-Divisional Officer has issued notices to the owners of the

vehicles involved. The learned advocate for the petitioner states that in


Kiran Kawre
                                      5                        958-CP-373-2026.odt


fact the addresses and other particulars for issuing the notices were

provided by the petitioner to the Sub-Divisional Officer.


9.        The SDO has stated in the reply that it was necessary to issue

notices to the owners of the vehicles/machines involved since the same

could not be released in favour of a person who is not the owner. He has

stated that the excavators seized were not registered in the name of

petitioner and that the machinery seized also belonged to third parties. It

is stated that in such circumstances verification of ownership had become

necessary. It is also stated that with respect to machines which were

seized communications were also issued to the manufacturer to seek

details of ownership.


10.       Having regard to the overall circumstances, this Court is of the

opinion that it is not possible to hold that the vehicles were initially not

released deliberately and that the orders under Section 48(8) of the MLR

Code have been passed in willful or deliberate non-compliance of the

order dated 7/7/2026 passed by this Court. The petitioner is admittedly

not the owner of the vehicles which were ordered to be released by this

Court.


11.       The owners of the vehicles/machinery have field separate petitions

being Writ Petition No.6430 of 2026, 6431 of 2026, 6432 of 2026 and

6433 of 2026 seeking release of the vehicles/machinery. Likewise, the

Kiran Kawre
                                     6                         958-CP-373-2026.odt


present petitioner had also filed a Writ Petition No.8787 of 2026 for

release of vehicles in compliance of the judgment and order dated

7/7/2026 being writ petition No.8030 of 2026. This Court has refrained

from granting relief to the petitioner in the said petition since the present

contempt petition was also filed.


12.       The facts and circumstances of the case indicate that the order

imposing penalty under Section 48(8) were passed within a reasonable

time. As regards directions for releasing the vehicles forthwith, as

contended by the petitioner, paragraph No.9 of the judgment order dated

7/7/2026 does not indicate that the vehicles were ordered to be released

forthwith. The vehicles were ordered to be released in terms of prayer

clause (B). Perusal of prayer (B) will indicate that the petitioners had

prayed that directions be issued to release the vehicles “without further

delay”.


13.       The said words “without further delay” cannot necessarily be

interpreted to mean “forthwith” as contended by the petitioner. The steps

that are taken by the SDO before passing orders are reasonable. As stated

above, the petitioner is not the owner of vehicles and the SDO deemed it

appropriate to issue notice to the owners of the vehicles/machines. The

contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the

petition was filed by the petitioner, the vehicles/machines ought to have

been released and handed over to him. The said contention cannot be

Kiran Kawre
                                       7                       958-CP-373-2026.odt


accepted in a Contempt Petition. The order passed by the SDO is a quasi

judicial order. The steps taken for issuance of notices to owners, are steps

taken in a quasi judicial proceedings. The SDO deemed it appropriate to

issue notice to the owners of the vehicles/machines and not to release

vehicles/machines in favour of the petitioner who is not the owner. It

cannot be said that the steps taken by the SDO in issuing notices to

owners were with a view to willfully and deliberately commit breach of

order passed by this Court.


14.       It must be stated that mere non-compliance with order does not

amount to contempt. The non-compliance must be willful and deliberate.

It must also be stated that action for punishment of contempt is quasi-

criminal in nature and therefore unless willful and deliberate non-

compliance is firmly established action for contempt cannot be taken. The

Contempt       is   attributed   to   the   SDO   for   not   releasing      the

vehicles/machines forthwith before passing orders under Section 48(8) of

the MLR Code. As is recorded above, the SDO has passed order under

Section 48(8) without undue delay. As regards, directions to release the

vehicles “without further delay”, the SDO took reasonable steps in

ascertaining ownership of the vehicles/machines involved for which he

cannot be blamed in the facts of the present case were ownership of

vehicles/machines is not vested with the petitioner who had filed the

aforesaid writ petition in which order for release of vehicles/machines


Kiran Kawre
                                       8                         958-CP-373-2026.odt


was passed.


15.       In view of the aforesaid, contempt petition is dismissed.

16.       However, it will be open for the petitioner to take recourse to such

steps as are available in law for getting the vehicles released and/or

challenging the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section

48(8) of the MLR Code and taking other measures for release of the

vehicles in accordance with law.




                                                 [ ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ]




Kiran Kawre