SULEMAN SHAHA JALAM SHAHAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:41027
                                                  1                          902-WP-10440-2026.odt




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                 902 WRIT PETITION NO. 10440 OF 2026
                                    Suleman Shaha Jalam Shaha
                                              VERSUS
                   The State Of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary And Others
                                                  ...
             Mr.Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao for the Petitioner.
             Ms. Preeti Diggikar, AGP for the Respondent/State.
                                                  ...
                                   CORAM         : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
                                        DATE          : 04.09.2026
             PER COURT :

             1.               The Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Sub

             Divisional Officer, Kannad (‘SDO’) dated 10th August, 2026, imposing

             penalty of Rs.7,50,000/- in exercise of his powers under Section 48(8) of

             the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (the ‘Said Code, 1966’). It is

             the case of the Petitioner that his vehicle that is a JCB bearing registration

             no.MH-17-BV-4625 was engaged in excavating silt and soil in view of the

             contract given to one N.K. Constructions for excavating silt from the lake

             situated in Khultabad. According to him, the JCB was standing in idle

             condition near by the lake. During such time, Respondent No.3 visited the

             spot and has drawn a false Panchanama behind the back of the Petitioner,

             alleging that the JCB was engaged in excavating silt and soil on 16 th July,

             2026.         Respondent   No.3   without   taking   into   consideration       the

             circumstances and relying on the Panchanama drawn by the Circle

             Officer, forwarded a proposal to Respondent No.2 on 16 th July, 2026.


             Sunny Thote
                                   2                        902-WP-10440-2026.odt


Relying on the said report of Respondent No.3, Respondent No.2 has

issued a show-cause notice to the Petitioner on 30 th June, 2026, as to why

penalty under Section 48(7)(8) of the Said Code, 1966, should not be

imposed upon him to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- for illegal excavatino of

silt and soil, from the lake at Khultabad. The show cause was issued

calling upon the Petitioner to reply within 24 hours.

2.            The learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr.Deshmukh,

submits that in fact on receiving such notice, he has approached the

Authority and brought to their notice that there is no such illegal

transportation. In fact he was excavating the silt and soil from the said

lake upon being engaged by N.K. Constructions who were awarded

contract by the Municipal Council Khultabad. The time during which it

was seized, the JCB was standing in idle condition. Inspite of that the

Authorities have not taken into consideration the explanation given by

the Petitioner and has passed the impugned order on 10th August, 2026.

3.            The learned Advocate for the Petitioner raises an objection to

the impugned order on the ground that, the Panchanama does not

disclose signatures of any Panchas, therefore, it is not reliable them. The

other objection raised by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner is about

the failure of Respondent No.3, to produce the vehicle before Respondent

No.2 within 48 hours as contemplated under Section 48(8)(2) of the Said

Code, 1966. According to him, based on the report dated 16 th July, 2026,

sent by Respondent No.3, Respondent No.2 has acted without actually
Sunny Thote
                                  3                         902-WP-10440-2026.odt


verifying the vehicle, which is necessary as per Section 48(8)(2) of the

Said Code, 1966 and has issued a notice more than 15 days after seizing

the vehicle. Due to all these procedural defects by the Revenue

Authorites, the impugned order is vitiated hence, the vehicle deserves to

be released by quashing and setting aside the order dated 10 th August,

2026.

4.            In support of his submissions, he relies on the orders passed

by this court in Writ Petition No.1273 of 2018 dated 6 th February, 2018 in

the case of (Dipak Logistics and Forwarders Kharghar Navi Mumbai &

Anr. V/s. State of Maharashtra and other) and Writ Petition No. 8915 of

2024 dated 30th August, 2024 (Shahaji Uttam Rakibe V/s. The State of

Maharashtra & Ors.). It is also contended that failure to follow the

procedure prescribed under Section 48(7)(8) of the said Code of 1966

vitiates the entire proceedings, and consequently, the impugned order

deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5.            Per-contra, the learned AGP appearing for the State

Authorities submits that her first and foremost objection is to the

alternate remedy which is available to the Petitioner, inspite of which he

has filed present Writ Petition on this ground alone, the present Writ

Petition deserves to be dismissed. She would further contend that, the

Panchanama itself discloses that the JCB was not standing idle, but was

engaged in excavating the silt, which is not permissible beyond 6:00 p.m.

Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the Petitioner that it
Sunny Thote
                                  4                          902-WP-10440-2026.odt


was standing in idle condition and not cause of action has arisen for

taking any actions. According to her, the Tahsildar had rightly submitted

the report within 24 hours. The vehicle was seized on 16 th July, 2026,

and the Tahsildar had immediately forwarded the report on the same day.

Hence, there is no substance in the contention of the Petitioner that the

report was not submitted within 48 hours.

6.            I have heard the respective parties and perused the record

produced by the learned Advocate, with their assistance. Upon perusal of

the Panchanama dated 16th July, 2026, it appears that none of the

Panchas has affixed his signature on it. In fact, the Panchanama records

that the Panchas have refused to affix their signatures thereon. Thus,

such Panchanama, which does not bear the signatures of the Panchas,

cannot be taken into consideration and it loses its evidentiary

significance. Similarly, the notice is issued by the SDO on 30 th July, 2026,

calling upon the Petitioner to show cause, why the penalty of

Rs.7,50,000/- should not be imposed. A gap in the date of Panchanama

as well as the issuance of notice itself indicate that, vehicle has not been

produced by Respondent No.3 before Respondent No.2 within 48 hours

as contemplated under Section 48(8)(2) of the Said Code, 1966.

Therefore, the procedure undertaken by the Authority vitiates the order

impugned.

7.            As pointed out by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner in

case of Dipak Logistics and Forwarders Kharghar Navi Mumbai & Anr.
Sunny Thote
                                  5                          902-WP-10440-2026.odt


(Supra), it has been categorically held by this Court that “it is mandatory

for Revenue Officials to produce the attached vehicles before the

Collector within a period of 48 hours. This seizure of vehicles without

verifying whether the act alleged is an offence or violation of any

regulations and failing to produce the vehicle before the Competent

Authority to facilitate its release causes great prejudice and also financial

loss to the owner. Apart from the harassment caused on account of illegal

actions of the Revenue Officials in seizing the vehicles and goods, there is

failure to observe the provisions of Section 48(8)(2) of the Said Code,

1966”. In fact in this order the Court having noticed the illegalities of the

Revenue Authorites has imposed cost of Rs.10,000/- for failure to follow

the mandate of Section 48(8)(2) of the Said Code, 1966.

8.            Similarly, in case of Shahaji Uttam Rakibe (Supra), also same

view is taken by this Court. Thus, there is no doubt from the documents

placed on record that the vehicle of the Petitioner that is JCB has not

been produced before the Competent Authority, i.e., the SDO, Respondent

No.2 within 48 hours as contemplated under Section 48(8)(2) of the Said

Code, 1966.

9.            In view of the failure to follow the procedure, the order

dated 10th August, 2026, imposing penalty on the Petitioner is quashed

and set aside and the Authorities are directed to release the vehicle of the

Petitioner, forthwith.



Sunny Thote
                                 6                       902-WP-10440-2026.odt


10.           With the aforementioned directions, this Writ Petition is

disposed off.



                                        [ MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ]




Sunny Thote