Bombay High Court
MAYUR SANJAY ADHAV AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The seizure of the vehicle and imposition of penalty by the Tahsildar without compliance with Section 48(a) and sub‑clause (2) of Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is illegal, and the writ petition is allowed.
Summary
Petitioner Mayur Sanjay Adhav challenged the seizure of his dumper (MH-12-FZ-5355) and a JCB machine by the Tahsildar under a panchanama dated 23.04.2025. The Tahsildar, without authority under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, issued a show‑cause notice and imposed a penalty of Rs.7,50,000, ignoring the requirement that seized vehicles be produced before the Collector or Sub‑Divisional Officer within 48 hours as mandated by Section 48(a) and sub‑clause (2) of Section 48(8). The High Court, relying on its earlier order in Writ Petition No. 4231 of 2026 and precedent cases, held that the seizure and penalty were illegal. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, directing the release of the dumper and setting aside the penalty. The decision reaffirmed that a Tahsildar lacks power to seize vehicles or impose penalties without following the statutory procedure.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tahsildar had authority to seize the petitioner’s dumper and impose a penalty under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
- Whether the procedure prescribed in Section 48(a) and sub‑clause (2) of Section 48(8) was complied with.
- Whether the penalty imposed by the Tahsildar is valid in the absence of production of the seized vehicle before the Collector/Sub‑Divisional Officer.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code — s. 48(8), 48(a)
Subjects
- seizure of vehicle
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- Section 48
- illegal seizure
- penalty imposition
- tahsildar authority
- writ petition
- minor minerals extraction
Judgment
1 973wp9462.26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
973 WRIT PETITION NO. 9462 OF 2026
MAYUR SANJAY ADHAV AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Kale Utkarsh Dnyaneshwar
AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5/State : Ms. Deepali S. Jape
...
CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : 23.09.2026.
PER COURT :
1. The petitioner is challenging the orders dated 02.07.2025
and 17.07.2025, passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for illegal steps taken
by respondent No. 4 against the petitioner and to release the vehicle of
the petitioner i.e. Dumper bearing No. MH-12-FZ-5355, taken into
custody by the respondent authorities. The afore mentioned Dumper
was taken into custody vide panchanama dated 23.04.2025.
2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that by the
same panchanama a JCB machine as well as Dumber were seized. In
Writ Petition No. 4231 of 2026 this Court vide order dated 06.09.2026
has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, directing to release
the JCB Machine on the ground that without following the procedure as
contemplated under Section 48 (a) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
Code, the JCB machine has been seized by the authorities. Therefore,
2 973wp9462.26.odt
the dumper which is also seized vide the same panchanama dated
23.04.2025 was also to be released in favour of the petitioner.
3. I have seen the order and the panchanama placed on record
by the petitioner, as well as the order passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No. 4231 of 2026 undisputedly, the following observations are
made by this Court are as below :
“7. The aforesaid scheme of the Code nowhere
stipulates that Tahsildar has power to seize vehicle or
equipment or impose penalty for the same. Sub-clause (2)
of sub-section (8) of Section 48 clearly stipulates that
power to impose penalty vests with Collector or Sub-
Divisional Officer on presentation of seized vehicle before
him within 48 hours. The aforesaid legal position has
been reiterated by this Court in case of Shahaji Uttam
Rakibe Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others (Writ
Petition No.8915 of 2024), Damodar Nivrutti Parge Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and Others (Writ Petition No.1441 of
2024) and Deepak Logistics and Forwarders and Another
Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others (Writ Petition
No. 1273 of 2018).
8. In present case, it is discernible that action of
seizure of vehicle is taken by respondent nos.4 and 5. The
respondent no. 4 without authority under law, issued
show cause notice and imposed penalty under section
48(8) ignoring requirements of sub-clause (2) of sub-
section (8) of Section 48. The vehicle was seized and kept
in police station. It was never produced before Sub
Divisional Officer for further action. The respondent no.4
illegally assumed power of Deputy Collector, issued show
cause notice and passed order imposing penalty of
Rs.7,50,000/-. The petitioner's vehicle is illegally detained
since 23.04.2025 under pretext of use for illegal
extraction of minor minerals and further order dated
02.07.2025 imposing penalty passed by respondent
no.4/Tahsildar.
9. In result, this Court holds that writ petition
3 973wp9462.26.odt
deserves to 9. be allowed and same is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (B) and (C).”
4. This Court has held that the seizure of the vehicle was done
without following the procedure as prescribed under Section 48 (a) of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, therefore, the Writ Petition stands
allowed.
5. On the aforementioned background, I do not see why
different view should be taken by this Court.
6. In the result the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
Clauses (B, C and D).
( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )
mahajansb/
Checking your session…