Bombay High Court

MAHENDRA RAJENDRA PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS

Holding

The Court held that the writ petitions are not maintainable to set aside the penalty order, but may direct the appellate authority to release the seized vehicles upon deposit of 25% of the penalty during the pendency of the appeal.

Summary

The Bombay High Court heard a batch of writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 12710‑12720/2026) filed by various petitioners whose vehicles and machinery had been seized by revenue officials and a penalty of Rs.7,50,000 (or Rs.2,00,000 in one case) imposed under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The petitioners sought a direction to the appellate authority to release the seized assets upon depositing 25% of the assessed penalty while their appeals are pending. The State argued that such interim relief is within the discretion of the appellate authority and that the writs are not maintainable because a statutory appeal is available. The Court noted the existence of a substantive remedy of appeal, but also recognized the hardship caused by prolonged detention of the assets. Accordingly, the Court directed the appellate authority to decide the pending appeals and, if an application for release is filed, to allow release of the vehicles/machinery upon payment of 25% of the penalty, subject to conditions, and disposed of the writ petitions.

Issues considered

The writ petitions are maintainable when a statutory appeal is available under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
Whether the High Court can direct the appellate authority to release seized property on partial payment of the penalty pending the outcome of the appeal.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code — s. 48(8)

Subjects

writ petition
seizure of property
penalty
Section 48(8)
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
interim relief
appeal
release of seized assets

Judgment

                                   1                  911 to 921.odt


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             911 WRIT PETITION NO. 12710 OF 2026
DEEPJYOTI ASSOCIATE THR AUTHORIZED PERSON DEEPAK S
                               KHALDE
                               VERSUS
 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS
                                   ...
 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao
       AGP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Preeti Diggikar
                                   …

                            AND
             912 WRIT PETITION NO. 12711 OF 2026
                      SANDIP RAMESH PATIL
                                VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                    ...
  Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao
Addl.GP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Dr. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar
                                    …

                            AND
             913 WRIT PETITION NO. 12712 OF 2026
                   ADHAR RATANSING GIRASE
                                VERSUS
  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS
                                    ...
  Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao
            AGP for Respondent/s – State : Mr. K.S. Patil
                                    …

                            AND
             914 WRIT PETITION NO. 12713 OF 2026
                KAILAS ASHOK DHOMSE
                       VERSUS
  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS
                                   2                  911 to 921.odt


                                    ...
  Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao
       AGP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Vaishali Chaudhari
                                    …

                            AND
             915 WRIT PETITION NO. 12714 OF 2026
                     AABA DHARMA SHELAR
                                VERSUS
  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS
                                    ...
  Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao
          AGP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Deepali Jape
                                   …

                            AND
             916 WRIT PETITION NO. 12715 OF 2026
 R SQUARE INFRA THR ITS PROPRIETOR RAVI RAMESH PATEL
                                VERSUS
  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS
                                    ...
  Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao
        AGP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Preeti Diggikar
                                    …

                            AND
             917 WRIT PETITION NO. 12716 OF 2026
                   PRADIP PRAKASHSING PATIL
                                VERSUS
  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS
                                    ...
  Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao
Addl.GP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Dr. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar
                                    …

                            AND
             918 WRIT PETITION NO. 12717 OF 2026
                  RUSHIKESH BHATA MAHAJAN
                               3                  911 to 921.odt


                              VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS
                                  ...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao
          AGP for Respondent/s – State : Mr. K.S. Patil
                                 …

                         AND
          919 WRIT PETITION NO. 12718 OF 2026
           VISHALSING DEVENDRASING SERAGI
                              VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS
                                  ...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao
     AGP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Vaishali Chaudhari
                                  …

                         AND
          920 WRIT PETITION NO. 12719 OF 2026
                MAHENDRA RAJENDRA PATIL
                              VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS
                                  ...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao
        AGP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Deepali Jape
                                  …

                         AND
          921 WRIT PETITION NO. 12720 OF 2026
               KALPESH DNYANESHWAR PATIL
                              VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS
                                  ...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao
      AGP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Preeti Diggikar
                                  …

                     CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
                     DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026
                                     4                     911 to 921.odt


PER COURT :

1.          In all these Writ Petitions listed before this Court the

vehicles / machinery of the respective Petitioners have been seized by the

Circle Officer / Tahsildar in the respective matters. Following are the

details of vehicles / machinery and penalty imposed on them :

                 Petition no.       Vehicles/Machine no.     Penalty
             W.P. No. 12710/2026   N601D00896              7,50,000/-
             W.P. No. 12712/2026   N603D02552              7,50,000/-
             W.P. No. 12713/2026   HYNDN633KE0070387 7,50,000/-
             W.P. No. 12714/2026   THEDCOLOPO0000241 7,50,000/-
             W.P. No. 12717/2026   S20022823               7,50,000/-
             W.P. No. 12718/2026   S21040216               7,50,000/-
             W.P. No. 12719/2026   N635D02139              7,50,000/-
             W.P. No. 12715/2026   N640D00231              7,50,000/-
             W.P. No. 12716/2026   N601D05010              7,50,000/-
             W.P. No. 12720/2026   N601D04037              7,50,000/-
             W.P. No. 12711/2026   MH-48-AG-5022           2,00,000/-



2.          After conducting the panchnama, a report has been

forwarded by the Tahsildar to the Sub-Divisional Officer. Thereafter, a

show cause notice was issued to the Petitioners as to why the penalty

under Section 48 (8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, should not

be imposed upon them. An order imposing penalty was subsequently

passed by the Tahsildar, Amalner, in the respective matters, which was

subject matter of challenge before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon.
                                        5                911 to 921.odt


The Sub-Divisional Officer, thereafter, passed an order imposing penalty

of Rs. 7,50,000/- on the Petitioners.


3.           Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that in all these

matters, the remedy of filing Appeal is available to the Petitioners and he

proposes to approach the Collector by invoking the statutory remedy of

Appeal. The only relief he is seeking in the present Writ Petitions is a

direction to the Appellate Authority to release the vehicles / machinery of

the respective Petitioners on depositing of the 25% of the penalty

assessed in the impugned order by the Appellate Authority by imposing

appropriate conditions during the pendency of the Appeal before the

Appellate Authority. He relies on the various orders passed by this Court

in Writ Petition nos. 8413/2026, 13060/2023 and 398/2026, wherein a

similar relief has been granted in favour of the Petitioners in the Writ

Petition.


4.           The respective government Advocates appearing in the Writ

Petitions, have opposed the prayer of the Petitioners on the ground that it

is prerogative of the Appellate Authority to grant interim relief to the

Petitioners during the pendency of the Appeal. Considering that there is a

substantive statutory remedy available to the Petitioners, the present Writ

Petitions are not maintainable. The availability of alternate statutory
                                     6                    911 to 921.odt


remedy is not disputed. However, considering the fact that the vehicles

after seizure, have remained in the custody of the Revenue Authorities for

more than two to three months, the continued detention of vehicles/

machinery is not only causing financial loss to the Petitioners but is also

results in the damage to vehicles / machinery in a stand still condition.


5.           In view thereof, since the Petitioners are not claiming that

the Writ Petitions should be entertained by setting aside the order passed

by the Sub-Divisional Commissioner, in my opinion, it would suffice to

issue directions to the Appellate Authority to decide the Appeals that

would be filed by the Petitioners against the orders passed by the Sub-

Divisional Officer and in case, if an Application is accompanied along

with such Appeal, order to release the vehicles / machinery forthwith

shall be passed upon depositing of 25% of the amount, by imposing

conditions like undertaking of redepositing the vehicles in case if any

adverse orders is passed in Appeals. If such Appeals are filed by the

Petitioners, the aforementioned orders shall be passed by the Appellate

Authority subject to the outcome of the Appeal.


6.           After the passing of the order of deposit of 25% of the

amount, the vehicles and the machinery shall be release forthwith.
                                   7                  911 to 921.odt


7.          With the aforementioned directions, the Writ Petitions shall

stand disposed of.




                                   ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )




SPC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…