Bombay High Court

SACHIN RAOSAHEB MASKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

Because an alternate statutory remedy is available, the writ petitions are dismissed and the petitioners must pursue the appeal before the Additional Collector.

Summary

The petitioners challenged orders of Sub‑Divisional Officers who, under Sections 48(7), 48(8) and 48(9) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, seized four of their vehicles that were allegedly loading sand from the Godavari riverbank. Five identical writ petitions were filed, contending that the seizures were unlawful and that the vehicles should be released. The State, through its Additional Government Pleaders, argued that the petitioners have an efficacious alternate remedy – an appeal before the Additional Collector – and cited a similar decision in Writ Petition No. 8942 of 2026. The Court held that the existence of this alternate remedy barred the writ relief and directed the petitioners to file an appeal within two weeks, depositing 25 % of the fine to obtain provisional release of the vehicles. Accordingly, all the writ petitions were disposed of without granting any relief.

Issues considered

Whether the seizure of the petitioners' vehicles under Sections 48(7), 48(8) and 48(9) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is legally valid.
Whether a writ petition is maintainable when an alternate statutory remedy (appeal to the Additional Collector) is available.
Whether the vehicles can be released on deposit of a portion of the imposed fine pending final determination.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code — s. 48(7), 48(8), 48(9)

Subjects

sand mining
vehicle seizure
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
writ petition
alternate remedy
administrative law

Judgment

                  1         1100-WP.8810-26 (1101 to 1103, 1106).odt




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             BENCH AT AURANGABAD

      1100 WRIT PETITION NO. 8810 OF 2026

            SACHIN RAOSAHEB MASKE
                    VERSUS
 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND
                    OTHERS

                      AND

      1101 WRIT PETITION NO. 8958 OF 2026

            ASARAM GANGADHAR GIRI
                   VERSUS
 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND
                   OTHERS

                      AND

      1102 WRIT PETITION NO. 8959 OF 2026

              AFRIDI AMJAD PATHAN
                     VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
                     OTHERS

                      AND

      1103 WRIT PETITION NO. 8962 OF 2026

         ISHWAR VISHWANATH SUKHDEO
                   VERSUS
 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND
                   OTHERS

                      AND

      1106 WRIT PETITION NO. 9890 OF 2026

      KRUSHNA GANESH BEDRE AND OTHERS
                   VERSUS
 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND
                   OTHERS
                          2             1100-WP.8810-26 (1101 to 1103, 1106).odt




                               ...
Advocate for the Petitioners in all : Mr. Shashikant E. Shekade.
AGPs for Respondent/s-State : Ms. P. V. Diggikar, Ms. Vaishali S.
 Chaudhary, Ms. D. S. Jape, Ms. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar,
                         respectively.
                               ...

                       CORAM : MANJUSHA A. DESHPANDE, J.
                       DATE : 02.09.2026

PER COURT :-


1.    The petitioners are challenging the order passed by the

Sub Divisional Officer, Beed, under Section 48(7) and 48(8) of

the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The vehicles of the

petitioners which were loaded with the sand have been seized

and the spot panchnama being conducted. The order has been

passed on 10.07.2026.


2.    In Writ Petition No.9890 of 2026, the petitioners are

challenging the impugned order dated 04.08.2026 passed by

the   SDO,   Majalgaon.       Petitioners   were       found        illegally

exacavating the sand and loading it into their vehicle at the

Godavari river side.    Accordingly, raid was conducted and

vehicle was sezied.


3.    In all there are five writ petitions wherein identical

orders passed, by the SDO by imposing penalty, as per Section

48(7), (8) and (9) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
                           3           1100-WP.8810-26 (1101 to 1103, 1106).odt




The petitioners have raised various grounds. More particularly,

the ground has been raised by the petitioners that, in all, four

vehicles were seized and seizure of the vehicles are one and

the same and they are found at the same place in identical

matters.


4.    Learned AGP has opposed all the writ petitions.                    She

would submit that the petitioners have an efficacious alternate

remedy to file appeal before the Additional Collector.                   The

similar order has been passed by this Court in Writ Petition

No.8942 of 2026 which is placed on record by the learned AGP

and submits that these writ petitions also can be dismissed

with the aforementioned directions.


5.    In view of the alternate remedy available to the

petitioners, the petitioners are at liberty to file the appeal

before the Appellate Authority within a period of two (2)

weeks from the date of this order with an application seeking

permission to deposit 25% of the fine amount and they be

permitted to deposit the same. Upon depositing the said

amount, the vehicles be released subject to final outcome of

the   application.   The   Appellate    Authority         may       impose

appropriate condition for release of vehicles.
                          4           1100-WP.8810-26 (1101 to 1103, 1106).odt




6.      In the aforementioned directions, all the writ petitions

disposed of in view of the alternate remedy available to the

petitioners.




                              (MANJUSHA A. DESHPANDE, J.)

                                ...

vmk/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…