PARESH DILIP PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:41268
                                                  1                        903-WP-10557-2026.odt




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                903 WRIT PETITION NO. 10557 OF 2026

                                         Paresh Dilip Patil
                                             VERSUS
                 The State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary And Others
                                                 ...
             Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao for the Petitioner.
             Dr. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Addl. G.P. for the Respondent/State.
                                                 ...

                                      CORAM           : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
                                      DATE            : 04.09.2026
             PER COURT :


             1.              The Petitioner is aggrieved by the undated order issued by

             Respondent No.2, seizing the vehicle of the Petitioner and subsequent

             order imposing penalty upon the Petitioner for unauthorizedly excavating

             the minor minerals by using the vehicle that is JCB bearing no.MH-54-B-

             1329. The impugned order was passed on 20th August, 2026.

             2.              It is the contention of the Petitioner that, First Information

             Report (‘FIR’) came to be registered on 28 th July, 2026, alleging that on

             27th June, 2026, one Mr.Dattatray Nikam informed to the complainant

             that illegal excavation of murum (minor minerals) is taking place with

             the help of JCB in the Sub Divisional Magistrate Amalner Division at

             Pimple, Taluka Amalner. Upon receiving of such information, the

             complainant visited the spot and seized the yellow-coloured JCB, which

             was found standing at some distance from the spot. One blue-and-white-

             Sunny Thote
                                 2                         903-WP-10557-2026.odt


coloured dumper was also found at the spot. The driver of the dumper

was found sitting in the driver's cabin. Upon being questioned by the

police about the two vehicles, the driver disclosed the names of the

respective vehicles. When he was asked to produce the requisite permit

issued by the concerned department, he failed to produce the same. On

the aforementioned background, the FIR came to be registered by the

Police Authorities under Sections 303(2), 305 and 62 of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS, 2023’) and the vehicle was taken into

custody. It is the contention of the Petitioner that after seizure of the

vehicle, it was taken into custody by the Police Officers and thereafter it

was informed to the Sub Divisional Officer, Amalner (‘SDO’) by way of

communication dated 28th July, 2026, informing the SDO, Amalner that

the vehicle/JCB has been seized, while engaged in excavation of minor

minerals and an offence has been registered against him. Further calling

upon him to take necessary action against the vehicle owner for illegal

excavation of the minor minerals.

3.            It is submitted that upon receiving such communication

dated 28th July, 2026, Panchanama came to be conducted on 30 th July,

2026, in the premises of the Police Station itself and, after carrying out

such Panchanama an undated notice has been issued to the Petitioner,

who is the owner of the said JCB. Calling upon him, to show cause as to

why the penalty shall not be imposed upon him under Section 48(8) of

the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (the ‘MLR Code, 1966’) for an
Sunny Thote
                                  3                         903-WP-10557-2026.odt


amount of Rs.7,50,000/-. The Petitioner was called upon to respond to

the said show-cause notice within three days. It is submitted that in fact

this notice is undated and the Petitioner has received the said notice on

10th August, 2026. It is submitted that though initially the notice was

undated, subsequently the date was affixed on it as 6 th August, 2026.

Upon receiving such notice, the Petitioner has approached this Court

challenging the said notice on the ground that it is not permissible for the

Revenue Authorities to impose penalty on the basis of the FIR registered

by the Police Officer.

4.            According to the learned Advocate for the Petitioner only

upon undertaking procedure contemplated under Section 48(7) and (8)

of the MLR Code, 1966, the action of imposing penalty can be imposed

on the owner of vehicle. In the present case, according to him, the vehicle

has been seized by the Police Authorities and thereafter handed over to

the Revenue Authority for taking further action under the MLR Code,

1966, which is not permissible in view of the catena of decisions of this

Hon’ble Court. It has been held that after the Police Authority seize the

vehicle, further action by the Tahsildar under Section 48(8) of the MLR

Code, 1966 to impose penalty is not permissible.

5.            In support of his submissions, he relies Judgment of this

Court at Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.390 of 2021 dated 3 rd July,

2025 (Shri Gajanan S/o. Vilasrao Kalbande & Anr. V/s. State of

Maharashtra & Ors.), Writ Petition No.392 of 2021 dated 23rd June, 2025
Sunny Thote
                                   4                         903-WP-10557-2026.odt


(Shri Dhiraj S/o. Prabhakar Nimkar V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) , as

well as Writ Petition No.6242 of 2025 dated 26 th February, 2026 (Ayub

Jumma Reghiwale V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) . In all these

decisions, this Court has consistently taken a view that the action taken

by the Revenue Authorities under Section 48(8) upon seizure by the

Police Authorities is not permissible.

6.            In view of the aforementioned judicial pronouncement, the

learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the seizure of the vehicle

in the present case is by the Police Authorities, an FIR has already filed,

which is a independent cause of action. The subsequent action of the

Revenue Authorities is not permissible, therefore, it needs to be quashed

and set aside.

7.            Per-contra, the learned Addl. G.P. submitted that so far as the

grant of relief to the Petitioner is concerned, the Petitioner has an

efficacious and alternate remedy available under law. Therefore, the

present Writ Petition itself is not maintainable. She would further rely on

the Government Circular dated 17 th July, 2025, issued by the Revenue

and Forest Department, which according to her has been issued for

preventing unauthorized excavation and transport of minor minerals.

8.            It is submitted that the Revenue Administration is under a

statutory administrative obligation to protect government mineral

resources and prevent loss of public revenue and environmental

degradation. Thus the Government Resolution dated 8 th April, 2025,
Sunny Thote
                                 5                         903-WP-10557-2026.odt


concerning the sand/minor minerals policy and the Government Circular

dated 17th July, 2025 further demonstrate the State’s policy of taking

effective action against unauthorized excavation, transportation and

trafficking of minor minerals. It is submitted that in view of the

aforementioned circular, the Police Authorities as well as the Revenue

Authorities are directed to cooperate with each other, whenever there is

an incident of illegal transportation or excavation of minor minerals

reported. She submits that in fact Clause No.1 and 2 of the Government

Circular permits the Revenue Authorities to file FIRs against the person

who is found to be engaged in the excavation and transportation of minor

minerals.

9.            I have heard the respective parties and perused the

documents placed on record. Undoubtedly, the FIR has been registered

for illegal excavation of minor minerals without any valid permit on 27 th

July, 2026 by the complainant who is the Police Head Constable at

Amalner Police Station. Upon such registration of FIR under Sections

Sections 303(2), 305(e) and 62 of the BNS, 2023, the Police Inspector of

Amalner Police Station has communicated about registration of FIR and

seizure of the vehicle to the SDO, Amalner vide communication dated

28th July, 2026, calling upon him to take appropriate action at his end. On

receiving such communication, a Panchanama is conducted on 30 th July,

2026. The Panchanama was conducted in the Police Station, where the

vehicle was parked after it was seized by the Police Officer of the Amalner
Sunny Thote
                                        6                        903-WP-10557-2026.odt


Police Station. After conducting the Panchanama on 30 th July, 2026, an

undated notice came to be issued to the Petitioner. After which the

Petitioner appears to have communicated to the SDO calling upon him to

make him available all the documents in respect of his vehicle on the

basis of which the vehicle has been seized. After making such

communication dated 20th August, 2026, it appears that he has received

the notice dated 6th August, 2026 alongwith the documents. Upon

receiving the notice, the Petitioner has immediately approached this

Court, challenging the action of the Revenue Authorities taken under

Section 48(8) of the MLR Code, 1966. In the meanwhile, during the

pendency of the Writ Petition, the final order imposing the penalty on the

Petitioner has been passed by the SDO on 20th August, 2026, which is also

challenged by the Petitioner by way of amendment.

10.                 Section 48(7) and (8) of the MLR Code, 1966, reads thus:

              48.    Government title to mines and minerals.

                     7) Any person who without lawful authority extracts,
              removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes of any
              mineral from working or derelict mines, quarries, old
              dumps, fields, bandhas (whether on the plea of repairing or
              construction of bunds of the fields or on any other plea),
              nallas, creeks, river-beds, or such other places wherever
              situate, the right to which vests in, and has not been
              assigned by the State Government, shall, without prejudice
              to any other mode of action that may be taken against him,
              be liable, [on the order in writing of the Collector or any
              revenue officer not below the rank of Tahsildar authorised
              by the Collector in this behalf, to pay penalty of an amount
              [up to five times] the market value of the minerals so
              extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up or
              disposed of, as the case may be:
Sunny Thote
                                       7                        903-WP-10557-2026.odt




                    “(8) (1) Without prejudice to the provision of sub-
              section (7), the Collector or any revenue officer [***]
              authorised by the Collector in this behalf, may seize and
              confiscate any mineral extracted, removed, collected,
              replaced, picked up or disposed of from any mine, quarry
              or other place referred to in sub-section (7), the right to
              which vests in, and has not been assigned by the State
              Government, and may also seize and confiscate any
              machinery and equipment used for unauthorised
              extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or
              disposal of minor minerals and any means of transport
              deployed to transport the same.

                     (2) Such machinery or equipment or means of
              transport, used for unauthorised extraction, removal,
              collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor
              minerals or transportation thereof, which is seized under
              sub-section (1), shall be produced before the Collector or
              such other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector
              authorised by the Collector in this behalf, within a period
              of forty-eight hours of such seizure, who may release such
              seized machinery, equipment or means of transport on
              payment by the owner thereof of such penalty as may be
              prescribed and also on furnishing personal bond of an
              amount not exceeding the market value of the seized
              machinery, equipment or means of transport, stating
              therein that such seized machinery, equipment or means of
              transport shall not be used in future for unauthorised
              extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or
              disposal of minor minerals and transportation of the
              same.]”


11.               Sub-Section 8 of Section 48 of the MLR Code, 1966,

empowers the Collector or any Authorized Officer by the Collector to

seize or confiscate any mineral extracted, removed, collected etc. from

any mine, quarry or other place alongwith machinery, equipment etc.

referred to in sub-section (7). Therefore, it is expected that the Revenue

Officer should seize the vehicle from the place where it was found to be

Sunny Thote
                                        8                        903-WP-10557-2026.odt


engaged in such illegal activity of extracting, removing, collecting or

transporting the minor minerals and upon seizure of this vehicle or minor

minerals, it is required to be produced before the Collector or such other

Authority not below the rank of the Deputy Collector within 48 hours.

12.                In the present case admittedly the seizure has not been

conducted by the Revenue Authority but the vehicle has been seized by

the Police Authorities and after registering the offence under the BNS,

2023 a communication was made to the SDO, Amalner informing about

the seizure of vehicle and calling upon him to take appropriate action as

permissible under law. Upon receiving such information, the Panchanama

has been conducted, which is not in conformity with Section 48 Sub-

Section 8, Sub-Clause (1) of the MLR Code, 1966. The aforementioned

procedure of taking action after the vehicle has been seized by the Police

Authorities has been deprecated by various decisions of this Court, as has

been seen from the Judgment annexed to the Writ Petition. This Court

has been consistent in its view that such a procedure adopted by the

Revenue Authorities is not permissible as per Section 48(8) of the MLR

Code, 1966. In Writ Petition No.392 of 2021, following observations are

made by this Court, which read thus :

              “9. From the order dated 14.12.2020, it appears that on
              the basis of the report of Police Inspector, Police Station,
              Warud, had given a requisition to the Tahsildar to measure
              the sand, accordingly sand was measured by the Talathi
              concerned, who found that the sand admeasuring 7.88
              brass was being transported. After referring the
              Government Resolution, the penalty was imposed against
Sunny Thote
                                        9                          903-WP-10557-2026.odt


              the sand as well as truck owner. As regards the powers of
              Police, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition
              No.8424/2018 (Gufran Khan Rahmatullah Khan Vs. State
              of Maharashtra and Ors.) decided on 13.03.2019 has held
              that the action of seizure by Police Station itself being
              without jurisdiction, all further actions taken in the case by
              the Revenue Authority would also have to be termed as the
              ones without jurisdiction.

              10. Relying on the said judgment, this Court in Writ
              Petition No.1081/2021 (Shri Shoeb Ahmad s/o. Ajaz
              Ahmad Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors) has observed
              that the police could not have seized the vehicle under
              Section 48 of the MLR Code. Further the Tahsildar could
              not have invoked Section 48(8) of the MLR Code to impose
              penalty on the truck owner inasmuch as Section 48(8)
              provides that the machinery/equipment used for
              unauthorized transportation of minerals, if seized under
              Clause (1) of Section 48(8), the same shall be produced
              before the Officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector
              within 48 hours of such seizure, who may release the said
              vehicle/equipment to the owner on penalty as may be
              prescribed.”


13.                Similarly in case of Ayub Jumma Reghiwale (supra), the

same view is reiterated in Paragraph No.6, which reads thus :

              “6. In the backdrop of these submissions, while considering
              the rival controversy, it has to be noted that undisputedly
              the JCB in question is already released on suprutnama and
              the only issue is about sustainability of the orders imposing
              penalty. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer
              shows that it records that JCB bearing no.MH-28-AZ-3452
              was found plying on the road on 02.07.2025 with 100
              brass of Muroom and the said order also mentions that the
              JCB was carrying 100 brass of sand. There is clear
              discrepancy in the impugned order which mentions at one
              place '100 brass of Muroom' and at another place '100
              brass of sand'. Further, it is specifically mentioned that the
              JCB was found plying on the road on 02.07.2025 which is
              clearly erroneous in view of the fact that the JCB itself was
              released by the order of the Judicial Magistrate (First
              Class), Mehkar on 03.07.2025. On this discrepancy, the

Sunny Thote
                                       10                          903-WP-10557-2026.odt


              learned Assistant Government Pleader states that these are
              typographical mistakes. In support of his contention that
              the JCB was seized by the police authorities, the counsel
              for the petitioner has pointed out the observations in the
              impugned order and the same are also not disputed by the
              learned Assistant Government Pleader and therefore it
              becomes clear that the seizure of the JCB was by the police
              authorities and not by the Tahsildar. The contention of the
              petitioner that the seizure is not under section 48(8) has
              substance. The reliance placed by the counsel for the
              petitioner on the judgment in Gufran Khan Rahmatullah
              Khan (supra) thus become relevant wherein it is held that
              the action of seizure of the vehicle by the police authorities
              is without authority and hence all further actions based on
              such seizure are also rendered without jurisdiction.”


14.                Although the learned Addl. G.P. has strenuously contended

that in view of circular dated 17th July, 2025, the Police Authorities as

well as the Revenue Authorities have to act in tandem and such

procedure is permissible according to the said circular.              Upon going

through the circular, I do not find that it has to be read in such a manner.

The circular in Sub-Clause (i) itself makes its clear that the Revenue

Authorities should not only impose penalty but also file FIR against the

persons engaged in the illegal excavation and transportation of sand such

powers are given to the Revenue Authorities. Similarly, even though it is

permissible for the Police Authorities to file FIR against the persons

engaged in the illegal activities under the sections mentioned in Sub-

Clause (ii), it does not contemplate that the Revenue Authorities should

take action without following the procedure as contemplated under

Section 48(8) of the MLR, Code, 1966 Thus, it is contemplated that the


Sunny Thote
                                11                         903-WP-10557-2026.odt


Revenue Authorities should file an FIR against the persons who are found

to be engaged in the excavation and transportation of the illegal minor

minerals. The procedure adopted by the Revenue Authorities in the

present case suffers from procedural flaws. The initiation of the action

under Section 48(8) of the MLR Code, 1966 itself becomes unsustainable.

This Court does not approve of the tactics adopted by the Revenue

Authorities, of placing reliance on the seizure of vehicle made by the

Police Authorities, to initiate action under Section 48(8) of the MLR

Code, 1966, which is in clear contravention of the view taken by this

Court. The procedure adopted by the Revenue Authorities is in

contravention of the procedure laid down under Section 48(7)(8) of the

MLR Code, 1966. As such the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.

15.           In view thereof, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of

Prayer Clause [B-1]. The vehicle of the Petitioner seized pursuant to the

action taken by the Revenue Authority, shall be released forthwith.




                                         [ MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ]




Sunny Thote