Bombay High Court
CHIMAN R. PATEL AND ORS.versusTAHASILDAR, SHAHAPUR AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that extraction of loose soil that is not removed from the site for the purposes specified in the notification does not attract royalty or penalty, and therefore the Tahsildar’s order was illegal.
Summary
The petitioners, members of a joint venture, challenged a Tahsildar's order imposing a penalty under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 for allegedly extracting 5,651.47 brass of loose soil from a construction site. They argued that the extracted soil was largely re‑levelled on the same site, with only 1,700 brass removed, and that loose soil is not a "minor mineral" unless used for purposes specified in the notification under Section 3(e) of the Mines Act, 1952. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Promoters and Builders Association of Pune v. State of Maharashtra, the petitioners contended that no royalty or penalty could be levied without such utilization. The Court examined the panchanama and the Tahsildar’s order, finding no evidence that the soil was removed for the notified purposes. Consequently, the Court quashed the order, directed the return of the amount deposited with interest, and allowed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- What constitutes a "minor mineral" under the Mines Act and related notifications?
- Whether the extraction of loose soil for on‑site re‑leveling attracts royalty or penalty under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 — s. 48(7)
- Mines Act, 1952 — s. 2(j), 3(a), 3(e)
Subjects
- minor minerals
- royalty
- soil extraction
- land revenue
- penalty
- panchanama
- construction site
- Maharashtra
Judgment
Gitalaxmi 11-WP-10069-2015-J.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10069 OF 2015
1. CHIMAN R. PATEL,
age 46, Indian,
2. JIMMY LAXMIDAS BHANUSHALI,
age 54, Indian.
3. BHARAT BHIMJI DIWANI,
age 50, Indian.
4. GOVIND R. PATEL,
age 50, Indian.
5. NANDKISHORE M. BHANDARI,
age 58, Indian.
All residents of Village Kharade,
Taluka Shahapur, Dist.-Thane
and members of Joint Venture of
M/s. Shahapur Land Developers. ...PETITIONERS
Versus
1. TAHASILDAR,
Shahapur, Dist.-Thane.
2. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
Bhiwandi (Dist.-Thane).
3. CIRCLE OFFICER,
Dolkhamb, Shahaput, Dist.-Thane.
4. TALATHI,
Village Tembhurli, Tal.-Shahapur, Dist.-Thane.
Page 1 of 5
31st AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi 11-WP-10069-2015-J.docx
5. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Through Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai).
...RESPONDENTS
Mr. Prashant D. Jadhav a/w Ms. Madhusmita Sahoo & Mr.
Shrunkhal Pashte, Advocates for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. H. Kankal, AGP for the State-Respondent.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of learned
counsel appearing for the parties heard finally.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Tahsildar has passed an order dated 18 th March, 2015 under Section
48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 imposing
penalty for extraction of the minor mineral i.e. the loose soil/earth
from the construction site.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has taken me through the
panchanama, which notes that there are certain extractions being
carried out in the dimensions mentioned in the panchanama. The
Tahsildar in his order has observed that the total extraction was of
Page 2 of 5
31st AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi 11-WP-10069-2015-J.docx
5651.47 brass, i.e. loose soil/earth and that the Petitioner had
permission of 1700 brass soil extraction.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in terms of
the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Promoters and
Builders Association of Pune v/s. State of Maharashtra and Others 1,
the loose soil/earth is not a minor mineral unless it is removed and
utilized for the purposes mentioned in the notification issued under
Section 3(e) i.e. for the purpose of route laying, roads,
embankments, railways, buildings to be a minor minerals in addition
to the minerals already declared as minor minerals. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in paragraph 11 of the said judgment has held that,
“11. What is a mineral is not defined either under the MRTP Act
or the Code. The said expression is however defined by section
2(j) of the Mines Act, 1952 and section 3(a) read with section
3(e) of the Act of 1957. As mining activities and operations are
regulated by the provisions of the Act of 1957, it is the
definition contained in the said Act, which will be more relevant
for the present. Section 3(a) and Section 3(e) is in the
following terms :
“Section 3.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) “minerals” includes all minerals except mineral oils:
(b) xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
(c) xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
1
2015(1) Bom.C.R. 26.
Page 3 of 5
31st AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi 11-WP-10069-2015-J.docx
(e) “minor minerals” means building stones, gravel, ordinary
clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed
purposes, and any other mineral which the Central Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a
minor mineral.
[(ea) “notified minerals” means any mineral specified in the
Fourth Schedule;]”
5. Learned counsel submits that extraction is a natural part of
the construction activities and that the earth extracted is re-levelled
back into the same site from which it is extracted. Only maximum of
1700 brass are removed from the extracted site. All other earth is re-
fixed, utilized and levelled on the same site. Learned counsel
submits that he is not even bound to pay royalty on 1700 brass soil,
as it is not utilized for the purposes mentioned in the notification.
However, they have paid the same. Learned counsel submits that the
penalty imposed for extraction of 3951.47 brass soil is illegal, as
there is no removal of the earth from the site for utilization of the
purposes mentioned in the notification.
6. The order passed by the Tahsildar does not indicate that the
earth is removed from the extracted site. Panchanama does mention
that there has been levelling on the site. Unless there is extracted
soil utilised for the purposes mentioned in the notification, no royalty
can be imposed.
Page 4 of 5
31st AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi 11-WP-10069-2015-J.docx
7. Considering the same, the impugned order passed by the
Tahsildar is quashed and set aside. The amount deposited by the
Petitioner with the Tahsildar pursuant to the directions of this Court,
to be returned back along with the accrued interest @ 6% per annum
to the Petitioner.
8. Writ Petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.
9. Rule made absolute in the above terms.
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]
GITALAXMI
KRISHNA
KOTAWADEKAR
Digitally signed by
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KOTAWADEKAR
Date: 2026.09.05
13:36:15 +0530
Page 5 of 5
31st AUGUST, 2026
Checking your session…