Bombay High Court

AVINASH VASANT KOHKADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court directed the appellate authority to release the seized vehicles/machinery upon deposit of 25 % of the penalty, subject to conditions, while the appeal is pending.

Summary

The petitioners’ vehicles and machinery were seized by revenue officials and a penalty of Rs 2 lakhs was imposed under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking a direction that the appellate authority release the seized assets upon depositing 25 % of the penalty while their appeal is pending. The State opposed, arguing that the writ is not maintainable because a statutory appeal exists. The Court held that although the writ cannot set aside the penalty order, it may grant interim relief directing the appellate authority to release the assets upon payment of the stipulated amount and subject to conditions. Accordingly, the Court ordered the appellate authority to release the vehicles/machinery upon deposit of 25 % of the penalty and to decide the pending appeals, and disposed of the writ petitions.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition is maintainable when a statutory appeal against the penalty order is available.
Whether the Court can grant interim relief directing the appellate authority to release seized vehicles upon partial deposit of the penalty.
Whether conditions can be imposed on the release of seized property pending the outcome of the appeal.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code — s. 48(8)

Subjects

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

Judgment

                                     1                     949.odt


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 WRIT PETITION NO. 6430 OF 2026
                            WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO. 6433 OF 2026
                            WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO. 6431 OF 2026
                            WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO. 6432 OF 2026
                AVINASH VASANT KOHKADE
                             VERSUS
     THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL
                 SECRETARY AND ANOTHER
                                ...
           Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. B.S. Deshmukh
                    h/f. Mr. Sonar Prashant R.
         AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Ms. Deepali Jape
                                …
                      CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
                      DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026

PER COURT :

1.           In all these Writ Petition 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. 6430/2026    MH-15-EG-4755           2,00,000/-
             W.P. No. 6431/2026    MH-15-GV-8455           2,00,000/-
                                       AND
                                   MH-15-JC-5155
             W.P. No. 6432/2026    MH-21-BG-5588           2,00,000/-
             W.P. No. 6433/2026    MH-15-GV-5155           2,00,000/-
                                     2                    949.odt


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. After issuance of the show casue notice and the

explanation given by the Petitioner, the Petitioner has approached this

Court. However, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the order

imposing penalty has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which is

under challenge in the present Writ Petition. The order has been passed

during the pendency of the Writ Petition. Penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs has been

imposed on the Petitioners vide order dated 03.08.2026.


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
                                     3                    949.odt


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

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
                                    4                   949.odt


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.          With the aforementioned directions, the Writ Petitions shall

stand disposed of.



                                    ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )




SPC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…