Bombay High Court
JAGDISH SURESH SHIRSATH AND ANOTHERversusCOLLECTOR BEED
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed for lack of merit and insufficient evidence.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions to decide a representation dated 16‑10‑2025 and to compel the Collector to act against revenue officers alleged to have facilitated illegal sand excavation at Manur village, Beed. The court noted that the petitioners had previously made a representation on 23‑11‑2022, which was followed by a panchanama on 30‑11‑2022, but no further action was taken. The petition relied solely on a fresh representation and unsubstantiated allegations that revenue officials colluded with land mafias, without any police report or concrete evidence. The court held that mere signing of a representation and vague statements do not constitute a case for the exercise of powers under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petition was found to lack merit and was dismissed, with a warning that costs could be imposed for reckless allegations.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners have sufficient material to invoke the court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 for the alleged illegal sand excavation.
- Whether a representation signed by villagers, without supporting evidence or a police complaint, can justify a writ of mandamus against the Collector.
- Whether the court can direct disciplinary action against revenue officers based solely on the petitioners' allegations.
Subjects
- illegal sand excavation
- revenue officer fraud
- representation
- Article 226
- Article 227
- civil court jurisdiction
- land mafia
- costs
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:4642-DB
40-wp-1117-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
40 WRIT PETITION NO.1117 OF 2026
1. Jagdish Suresh Shirsath
2. Sarjerao Baburao Moharnor .. Petitioners
Versus
Collector, Beed .. Respondent
...
Mr. Shashikant E. Shekade, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. B. Narwade, AGP for Respondent/State.
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATE : 02 FEBRUARY 2026
ORDER :
. Present petition has been filed for directions to decide the
representation of the petitioner dated 16.10.2025 and also direction
against the respondents to take appropriate action against the revenue
officers, who are responsible for the fraud conducted in illegal excavation
of sand at the village Manur, Taluka Shirur, District Beed.
2. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner.
[1]
40-wp-1117-2026.odt
3. First of all, it appears that representation was made on 23.11.2022
and test panchanama has been drawn on 30.11.2022, for which it
appears that thereafter the petitioners have not taken any action. Now, it
is stated that those persons, who are excavating the sand, have started
the excavation once again and, therefore, representation has been filed
on 15.10.2025. Except representation, there is nothing on record to
support the contention of the petitioners. When the petitioners say that it
is the theft of the sand and illegal excavation, the petitioners are free to
lodge the report with the police. Learned Advocate for the petitioners
submits that many villagers have signed the representation. Mere signing
of the representation will not do. If those persons, who are signatory,
unite and resist the act, then definitely the persons who are allegedly
excavating the sand would get lesson. Another limb of argument was
that petitioners’ land is getting affected due to the land mafias for which
the petitioners should approach the Civil Court and without any
evidence, blind statement is made that some revenue officials have joined
the hands with land mafias in illegal excavation of the sand from the
lands of the petitioners. For such reckless statements, in fact we would
have imposed cost upon the petitioners. Without evidence the petitioners
are not supposed to make any statement, so also the learned Advocate
representing them ought to have restrained them from making such
[2]
40-wp-1117-2026.odt
statements. However, our observations are suffice. We do not find any
merit in the matter. No case is made out for exercise of powers under
Article 226 of Constitution of India much less under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
4. The writ petition stands dismissed.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
scm
[3]
Checking your session…