Bombay High Court
ALTAF BALDAR SHAHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
Gitti/stone metal is not a minor mineral, so the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to impose penalties under sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Summary
Altaf Baldar Shah, the petitioner, challenged the seizure of his vehicle MH‑14‑BJ‑4216 by a revenue inspection squad on the ground that it was allegedly transporting 1.5 bri of stone metal (Gitti/Khadi). The Tahsildar imposed a fine of Rs.26,290 under section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and the Sub‑Divisional Officer issued a show‑cause notice for a larger penalty of Rs.5,50,000 under sections 48(7) and (8). The petitioner contended that Gitti/Khadi is not a "minor mineral" and thus falls outside the ambit of those provisions, relying on several Division Bench judgments. The Court examined the precedents, which consistently held that Gitti or metal stone is a finished product and not a minor mineral, rendering the authorities’ action ultra vires. Consequently, the Court quashed the Tahsildar’s order and the show‑cause notice, ordered the release of the vehicle, and directed the refund of any penalty paid.
Issues considered
- Whether Gitti/stone metal (Khadi) qualifies as a minor mineral under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
- Whether the Tahsildar and Sub‑Divisional Officer can levy penalties under sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the MLR Code for the transportation of such material.
- Whether the seizure and imposition of fine were within the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 — s. 48(7), 48(8)
Subjects
- minor mineral
- Gitti
- Khadi
- stone metal
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- Section 48
- vehicle seizure
- penalty
- jurisdiction
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:24660
1 wp 5762.2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5762 OF 2026
Altaf Baldar Shah,
age 31 years, Occ. Business,
Adarsh Nagar, Shrirampur,
Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahilyanagar. Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State Of Maharashtra
Through The Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.
2. The Collector,
Collector Office, Ahilyanagar,
Tq. & Dist. Ahilyanagar.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
4. The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahilyanagar. Respondents.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. A.B. Kharosekar
AGP for Respondents: Mr. K.S. Patil
…
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Dated : June 22, 2026
...
FINAL ORDER :-
1. The petitioner takes exception to the order dated
24.05.2026 passed by the Tahsildar, Shirampur in file
No.Kavi/Gau/Kha/Dand/04/2026 as well as show-cause notice
2 wp 5762.2026.odt
dated 27.05.2026 bearing No.COLAHM-47017(18)/31/2026-
SDO, issued by Sub-Divisional Officer, Shirampur.
2. The petitioner is owner of vehicle bearing registration
no.MH-14-BJ-4216. A inspection squad, under supervision of
the Naib-Tahsildar, Shirampur seized petitioner's vehicle under
the pretext that it was carrying 1.5 brass of stone metal/Khadi.
The report dated 24-05-2026 alongwith seizure panchanama
was forwarded to Tahsildar, Shirampur, who passed order
under section 48 (7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,
1966 (for short MLR Code) imposing fine of Rs.26,290/-
against petitioner. Further, based on report of Tahsildar,
Shirampur, Sub Divisional Officer, Shirampur issued a show-
cause notice dated 27-05-2026 to petitioner in terms of section
48 (7) and (8) of MLR Code as to why penalty of Rs.5,50,000/-
shall not be imposed against petitioner for illegal use and
transportation of the vehicle.
3. Mr. A.B. Kharosekar, learned advocate appearing for
petitioner submits that, it is well settled that the stone metal/
Khadi does not fall within meaning of minor-mineral and,
therefore, action taken by Respondents-Authorities under
impugned order and show-cause notice is patently illegal. In
support of his contentions, he relies upon Division Bench
Judgment of this Court in case of Ramakant Krishna Patil Vs.
3 wp 5762.2026.odt
State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.10744 of 2024
decided on 11-06-2025 as well as the order of learned Single
Judge of this Court in case of Vishal s/o Laxman Shinde Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition no.8194
of 2022 decided on 25.08.2022.
4. Apparently, panchanama dated 24.05.2026 clearly
depicts that petitioner's vehicle has been seized on the ground
that it was used for transportation of Gitti/stone metal.
Panchanama nowhere shows quantity of material loaded in the
vehicle. The Tahsildar, Shrirampur passed impugned order
dated 24.05.2026 invoking section 48 (7) of MLR Code,
whereby fine of Rs.26,290/- has been imposed upon petitioner
alleging that petitioner's vehicle was found transporting minor
vehicle without authorization. The impugned show-cause
notice dated 27.05.2026 is based on very same panchanama,
whereby Sub-Divisional Officer, Shirampur citing provisions of
section 48 (7) and (8) of MLR Code issued show-cause notice
to petitioner as to why penalty of Rs.5,50,000/- shall not be
imposed against him since his vehicle was found carrying
Gitti/metal stone.
5. At this stage reference can be given to the observations
of Division Bench of this Court in case of Pralhad Vishnu
Wayade and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others
4 wp 5762.2026.odt
dated 19.3.2010 in WP no.4077 of 2009 (Nagpur), wherein
this Court has specifically observed that Gitti or Metal Stone is
a finished product and it would neither be appropriate nor
permissible for the authorities to invoke action in terms of
section 48 (7) and (8) of the MLR Code. The aforesaid view
has been reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in case
of Ramakant Krishna Patil (supra). Similarly, in case of
Ashapuri Enterprises Through Karmiram B. Choudhary Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition no.3957 of
2023 decided on 14-12-2023) this court observed as under :-
“4. Ms. Mishra relied upon a judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in Pralhad s/o Vishnu
Wayade and ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
ors and an order passed by the learned Single Judge
of this Court in Vishal s/o Laxman Shinde Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and ors to submit that Gitti or
Khadi are not minerals and hence the question of
obtaining any transit pass or payment of any royalty
does not arise.”
6. In light of aforesaid legal position and factual backdrop
of present case, this Court finds that action under impugned
order passed by Tahsildar and show-cause notice issued by the
Sub-Divisional Officer against petitioner for transportation of
stone metal/Gitti is without jurisdiction, hence liable to be
quashed and set aside.
7. In result, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause ‘B’. The Respondents Authorities shall forthwith release
5 wp 5762.2026.odt
petitioner's vehicle bearing registration no.MH-14/BJ-4216 and
refund the penalty, if any, deposited by him in pursuance to the
impugned order. Writ Petition stands disposed off.
( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR )
Judge
…
aaa/-f
Checking your session…