Bombay High Court
Vinay S/O Dinesh Bohre vs The Tahsildar, Gondia And Others on 13 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4431
1 15wp5253.2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5253 OF 2021
Vinay s/o Dinesh Bohre,
Aged about 28 yrs, Occ. Business,
R/o Chhipiya, Tah Gondia,
Dist. Gondia. ...PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The Tahsildar, Gondia
having its office at Tahsil Office
Gondia,
2. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Gondia, having its office at
Jaystambh Bus Stop Gondia
3. The Additional Collector, Gondia
having its office at Collectorate
Administrative Building,
Amgaon Road, Gondia. ..RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bhupesh Patel, Adv h/f Mr. Virat Mishra, Advocate for
petitioner.
Mr. S.B. Bissa, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- M.W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATE :- 13.03.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsels for the parties.
2. The petition challenges the order dated 15.7.2021, passed by respondent No. 3 - the Additional Collector, Gondia in 2 15wp5253.2021.odt appeal bearing No. 33/MNL-37/2020-21, Mouja - Chhipiya Taluka Gondia; the order dated 25.3.2021, passed by respondent No. 2 - the Sub Divisional Officer, Gondia in Ra.Ma.Kra. 20/MNL- 37/2020-21; and the order dated 20.1.2021, passed by respondent No. 1 - the Tahsildar, Gondia in the case bearing No.Ra.Ma.Kra. 58/ MNL-37/2020-2021. Thereby imposing penalty on the petitioner of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards use of the tractor in alleged illegal transportation of minor mineral-Sand, under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short, "MLR Code").
3. Though, various grounds have been raised in the petition while challenging the impugned order; however, the only ground pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments is that the Tahsildar has no power to impose penalty under Section 48(8)(2) of the MLR Code for releasing the vehicle.
4. I have gone through Section 48(8)(2) of the MLR Code which reads as under:-
"48(8)(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 3 15wp5253.2021.odt 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."
Bare perusal of Section 48(8)(2) of the MLR Code reveals that, either the Collector or any other person authorized by the Collector not below the rank of the Deputy Collector may impose penalty for releasing the vehicle used for illegal transportation of sand.
5. Therefore, I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that though the Tahsildar has power to impose the penalty for illegal excavation/transport of the minor mineral under Section 48(7) of the MLR Code, he does not have power to impose the penalty on releasing the vehicle under Section 48(8)(2) of the MLR Code, as he is an authority lower in rank than the Deputy Collector. Thus, the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed by the Tahsildar for releasing the vehicle is without jurisdiction and therefore, the impugned order is required to be set 4 15wp5253.2021.odt aside to that extend and the petition deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
i) The Writ Petition is partly allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 20.01.2021, passed by
respondent No. 1 - the Tahsildar, Gondia, District Gondia in Revenue Case No. 58/M.L.N.38/2020-21; the order dated 25.3.2021, passed by respondent No. 2 - the Sub Divisional Officer, Gondia in Ra.Ma.Kra.20/M N L-37/2020-21; and the order dated 15.7.2021, passed by respondent No. 3 - the Additional Collector, Gondia, in Appeal No. 33/MNL-37/2020-21 are hereby quashed and set aside to the above extend. The rest of the order passed by the Tahsildar will remain unaffected by this order.
iii) The Tahsildar, Gondia, is directed to return the balance amount, if any, to the petitioner after deducting the penalty amount for illegal transportation of sand.
iv) The writ petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. Rule accordingly.
(M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Belkhede PS