BASUDEO MATOLIRAM AGRAWALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:42691
                                                 1                          WP.8243-26.odt



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 8243 OF 2026

                     Basudeo s/o Matoliram Agrawal,
                     Age: 47 years, Occu. Business,
                     R/o Krantinagar, Basmath Road Parbhani,
                     Tq. And Dist. Parbhani                  …           Petitioner.

                             VERSUS

                     1)      The State of Maharashtra
                             Through its Secretary, Revenue and
                             Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

                     2)      The Additional Divisional Commissioner,
                             Chha. Sambhajinagar,
                             Tq. And Dist. Chha. Sambhajinagar

                     3)      The Additional Collector, Hingoli
                             Tq. and Dist. Hingoli

                     4)      The Sub Divisional Officer
                             Basmath, Tq.Basmath
                             Dist. Hingoli

                     5)      The Tahsildar
                             Tahsil Office Basmath,
                             Tq.Basmath, Dist. Hingoli

                     6)      The Police Inspector
                             Hatta Police Station
                             Tq.Basmath, Dist. Hingoli.            …     Respondents.

                                                      ...
                          Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Surekha G. Chincholkar.
                          AGP for Respondents/State Authorities : Ms. P. V. Diggikar.
                                                      ...


                                             CORAM : MANJUSHA A. DESHPANDE, J.
                                             DATE : 15.09.2026
                             2                            WP.8243-26.odt



JUDGMENT :-


1.      Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally

by the consent of the parties.


2.      The petitioner, who is the registered owner of Tipper

No.MH-22-AA-2271 raises challenge to the judgment and order

dated    24.03.2026    passed     by   the   Additional    Divisional

Commissioner,         Chh.       Sambhajinagar       in        Appeal

No.2025/ROR/REV/CR-356 further seeking release of the

vehicle of the petitioner which is lying in the open premises of

the Tahsil Office, Basmat from 18.11.2022 till today. Challenge

is also raised to the huge penalty imposed by the Sub

Divisional Officer, Basmat to the tune of Rs.4,33,224/-.


3.      Mrs. Chincholkar, Learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner submits that the vehicle of the petitioner lifted two

brass sand as per the permit on 18.11.2022 and was on its way

to the destination i.e. Bhokar, District Nanded. This vehicle

belonging to the petitioner has been seized by the Circle

Officer while it was on its way to the destination at Basmat.

She submits that the panchnama was not conducted at the

place where it was intercepted, but was conducted in the

premises of the Tahsil Office at Basmat on 18.11.2022 by the
                             3                        WP.8243-26.odt



Circle Officer present in the Tahsil Office. She submits that on

the basis of this panchnama, conducted by the Circle Officer, a

report was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Officer on

18.11.2022, which reveals that the vehicle was intercepted at

the Basmat-Parbhani road, near Hayatnagar which was

allegedly transporting illegal sand, therefore, was subjected to

penalty and accordingly a report was submitted by the

Tahsildar, Basmat. The report stated that even prior to the

interception of the vehicle on 18.11.2022, similar action was

taken against the same vehicle by imposing penalty for illegal

transportation    of   the       sand.   After   submitting     the

aforementioned report dated 18.11.2022, a show cause notice

was issued to the petitioner on 24.11.2022, which was much

beyond the prescribed period of 48 hours as contemplated in

Section 48(8)(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,

which requires the revenue authority to produce the seized

vehicle before the Collector or any other Revenue Authority

within 48 hours of its seizure.


4.    The show cause notice was issued calling upon the

petitioner why the penalty of Rs.3,33,224/- should not be

imposed upon him for illegal transportation of the sand.

Therefore, the petitioner has filed his reply to the show cause
                          4                         WP.8243-26.odt



notice on the very next day of issuance of show cause notice

i.e. 25.11.2022. In response to the show cause notice, it was

stated that the petitioner was very much in possession of the

permit for transport of the minor mineral. The Circle Officer,

Kurunda and Tembhurni holding a grudge against the present

petitioner and taking undue advantage of his position has

seized the vehicle of the petitioner and filed a false complaint

against him. A request was made that his vehicle should be

released and handed over to him.


5.    The petitioner has raised challenge to the show cause

notice before this Court, in which, this Court vide order dated

17.07.2023 issued directions to decide the case of the

petitioner within 30 days from the date of the order.

Thereafter, a final order came to be issued on 03.08.2023,

thereby imposing penalty of Rs.4,33,224/- on the petitioner.


6.    Mrs. Chincholkar submits that, the show cause notice

was issued for an amount of Rs.3,33,224/- whereas the order

of penalty dated 03.08.2023 imposes penalty of Rs.4,33,224/-,

which is totally erroneous.   She submits that if show cause

notice is issued for a particular amount, the penalty cannot be

imposed for an amount more than the amount mentioned in

the show cause notice. Since the order imposing penalty of
                           5                          WP.8243-26.odt



Rs.4,33,224/- directed the petitioner to pay the said amount

within a period of three days of receiving the said order, he

again raised challenge to the said order in Writ Petition

No.15182 of 2023. However, he has withdrawn the said Writ

Petition to file appeal before the Additional Collector raising

challenge to the said order dated 03.08.2023. The Collector

has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on 11.09.2025

and the challenge raised before the Additional Divisional

Commissioner also has met the same fate. The Divisional

Commissioner, Chh. Sambhajinagar has dismissed the appeal

filed by the petitioner vide judgment and order dated

24.03.2026. As a result, the petitioner has filed the present

Writ Petition assailing both the orders passed by the Additional

Collector, Hingoli as well as the order of Additional Divisional

Commissioner, Chh. Sambhajinagar.


7.    The petitioner is raising challenge to the order of penalty

on the ground that, the panchnama is conducted by the Circle

Officer after the seizure of vehicle which is contrary to the

provisions of Section 48(8)(1) of the Maharashtra Land

Revenue Code. The seizure of vehicle on 18.11.2022 by the

Circle Officer is also arbitrary and illegal. It is submitted that

without measuring the sand contained in the Tipper of the
                           6                          WP.8243-26.odt



petitioner, penalty has been imposed for four brass sand. It is

further submitted that since the date of seizure of the vehicle

on 18.11.2022, the vehicle of the petitioner is standing in the

open premises of the Tahsil office if the vehicle is allowed to be

continued in the same condition for a further period, it may

become incapable to ply on road. Therefore, considering that

the vehicle has been seized without following due procedure of

law, the order imposing penalty by the SDO, Hingoli deserves

to be quashed and set aside.


8.    Per    contra,   learned    AGP     appearing     for     the

respondents/State Authorities has vehemently opposed the

prayer of the petitioner by contending that, pursuant to the

report submitted by the Circle Officer of Tembhurni and

Hayatnagar, a report was forwarded to the SDO on 18.11.2022

for initiating appropriate penal procedings against the said

vehicle and the person responsible for the illegal transportation

of sand. She submits that the said vehicle was also previously

found to be involved in illegal transportation of sand. This fact

was specifically brought to the notice of competent Authority

for taking into consideration while taking penal action against

the owner. The vehicle was found to be transporting four brass

sand without valid permit. The driver of the vehicle has failed
                          7                         WP.8243-26.odt



to produce the valid permit royalty pass for transportation of

the sand. Therefore, vehicle was seized and was brought to

the Tahsil Office for further action. Upon the report of the

Circle Officer, the Tahsildar, Basmat has forwarded a report and

panchnama to the SDO on the same day i.e. on 18.11.2022

and respondent No.4 has issued a show cause notice dated

23.11.2022 to the petitioner calling upon him as to why the

penalty of Rs.3,33,224/- should not be imposed on him for

illegal transportation of four brass of sand. Since the vehicle

has been seized on the second occasion, respondent No.4 has

called for the market value of the vehicle from the Deputy

Regional Transport Office, Hingoli and accordingly on

receiving the communication about the market value of the

vehicle which was assessed at Rs.3,00,000/-, the penalty has

been imposed to the tune of Rs.4,33,224/-. She further submits

that the competent authority is empowered by statute to

initiate appropriate penal proceedings under Section 48(7) and

48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code to impose

penalty on the vehicle that is found to be engaged in

unauthorized transportation of sand. In view of the available

record, the order passed on 03.08.2023 cannot be said to be

arbitrary, perverse or contrary to law. The said orders have

been passed upon due consideration of the relevant facts and
                          8                          WP.8243-26.odt



material placed on record. The Additional Collector, Hingoli as

well    as   Additional       Divisional   Commissioner,     Chh.

Sambhajinagar has found that the nature of proceedings

conducted by the subordinate authorities is in accordance with

the procedure prescribed by the law and the present petitioner

has failed to establish any material illegality, jurisdictional

error or any other competent ill infirmity in the impugned

orders, which do not warrant any interference in the orders

passed by the Additional Collector, Hingoli as well as Divisional

Commissioner, Chh. Sambhajinagar. Thus, according to her,

the order passed by both the Authorities being perfectly legal

and valid. There is no case for interference made out by the

petitioner for exercise of the powers of this Court under Article

227 of the Constitution of India.


9.     I have heard the respective parties and perused the

documents placed on record with their assistance. The vehicle

belonging to the petitioner has been intercepted and brought

to the Tahsil Office, after which, the panchnama is conducted

by the Circle Officer, Hayatnagar and Tembhurni, which

discloses that, a transport permit was in possession of the

driver which had a validity upto 11.18 p.m. Although the

panchnama is conducted at 3.00 p.m. in the premises of the
                          9                           WP.8243-26.odt



Tahsil Office. It does not record the time at which the vehicle

was intercepted. However, it records that the permit possessed

by the driver had a validity upto 11.18 p.m., for the very date

i.e. on 18.11.2022. No measurement of the sand was

conducted during the panchnma. On the statement of the

driver that the Hyva/Tipper contained about four brass of

sand, the same is stated in the report forwarded to the SDO by

the Tahsildar.   Therefore, although it is claimed by the

Authorities that the driver did not produce any documents.

Fact remains that the driver was in possession of the permit.

However, the validity of the said permit had expired few hours

before conducting the panchnama at 3.00 p.m. Similarly,

although the report is forwarded to the SDO by the Tahsildar

on 18.11.2022, alongwith the panchnama, the show cause

notice has been issued to the petitioner on 24.11.2022, which

is beyond the period prescribed in Section 48(8) of the

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The Section 48(8) of the

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is reproduced herein below

which reads thus :


      “48. Government title to mines and minerals.—
      (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,
                           10                          WP.8243-26.odt



      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 unauthorized 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 or 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.”


10.   Bare reading of 48(8)(2) makes it evident that the

machinery,    equipment or means of transport, used for

unauthorized extraction, removal, collection, replacement,
                         11                        WP.8243-26.odt



picking up or disposal of minor minerals, which is seized under

sub-section (1) is required to be produced before the Collector

or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector

within a period of forty-eight hours of such seizure, who may

release the seized machinery, equipment or vehicle on payment

of penalty as may be prescribed and also on furnishing

personal bond of an amount not exceeding the market value of

the seized machinery. In the present case, it is evident that

although the report was forwarded by the Tahsildar to the SDO

on 18.11.2022.     The SDO has not taken any steps till

24.11.2022, which is more than five days after the seizure of

vehicle. The show cause notice has been issued on 24.11.2022,

which is beyond the period of 48 hours as contemplated under

Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. This

delay in producing the machinery, equipment, vehicle etc.

before the competent Authority for pressing appropriate orders

has been deprecated by this Court in various judicial

pronouncements. In Dipak Logistics and Forwarders Kharghar

Navi Mumbai and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others

(Writ Petition No.1273 of 2018) as well as in case of Shahaji

Uttam Rakibe Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Writ

Petition No.8915 of 2024), this Court has held that, it is

mandatory for the competent authority to produce the vehicle
                          12                        WP.8243-26.odt



for passing appropriate orders within a period of 48 hours of

such seizure. This aspect of the procedure, which requires to

follow mandatory timeline as provided under Section 48(8) of

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code has been totally ignored by

both the Authorities i.e. Additional Collector, Hingoli and

Additional Divisional Commissioner, Chh. Sambhajinagar while

passing the orders impugned. Even the ground raising

objection to the penalty of Rs.4,33,224/- raised by the

petitioner deserves consideration. Although show cause notice

is issued for an amount of Rs.3,33,224/- which was later

increased to Rs.4,33,224/- by the SDO vitiates the order. The

enhancement of the penalty is tried to be justified by the State

Authorities claiming that, since the vehicle has been seized on

the second occasion, the market value of the vehicle was called

from the Deputy Regional Transport, Hingoli and accordingly,

the value of the vehicle is assessed at Rs.3,00,000/-. The total

amount along with the penalty of sand is assessed to

Rs.4,33,224/- and accordingly penalty has been imposed. This

explanation given in the affidavit does not find support from

the documents placed on record by the State Authorities in its

reply, which contains the table of valuation of the various

vehicles given by the Deputy Regional Transport Officer,

Hingoli, which shows that the valuation of the vehicle of the
                            13                         WP.8243-26.odt



petitioner with No.MH-22-AA-2271 is not at all mentioned in

the table. Even though the registration number of the vehicle

has been mentioned against the said number in the column of

valuation, no amount has been mentioned. Therefore, there is

no substance in the contention of the learned AGP that, after

receiving the valuation of the vehicle, the penalty has been

imposed in accordance with the policy of the Government. As

observed hereinabove, since the vehicle was not produced

before the competent Authority within 48 hours of its seizure

for taking appropriate action, the procedure for seizing the

vehicle stands vitiated. As a result, the order impugned as

regards seizure of vehicle deserves to be quashed and set aside,

in view of the various judicial pronouncements of this Court as

referred herein above.


11.    In the wake of above observations, the present Writ

Petition is allowed by quashing and setting aside the order of

penalty imposed by the SDO vide order dated 03.08.2023.

Consequently, the orders of the Additional Collector, Hingoli as

well   as    the   Additional    Divisional   Commissioner,    Chh.

Sambhajinagar are also quashed and set aside.


12.    The respondents are directed to release the vehicle

forthwith.
                           14                       WP.8243-26.odt




13.     Rule is made absolute in the above terms.




                                (MANJUSHA A. DESHPANDE, J.)

                                 ...

vmk/-