Bombay High Court
Mohd. Danish Mohd. Shafi vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... on 25 April, 2019
Author: Pushpa V. Ganediwala
Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
wp8652.18 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8652 OF 2018
Mohd. Danish Mohd. Shafi,
aged about 25 years,
occupation - Business,
r/o Shendi, Taluka - Achalpur,
District - Amravati. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Revenue and
Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer,
Akot, District - Amravati.
3. The Tahsildar,
Akot, District - Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri S.K. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. Shamsi Haider, AGP for the respondents.
.....
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE &
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA JJ.
APRIL 25, 2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2020 20:56:48 ::: wp8652.18 2
2. The petitioner has sought immediate release of his vehicle bearing registration No. MH-27 - X- 8546, which is said to be illegally detained by the respondents. The petitioner states that on 30.05.2018, while the aforesaid vehicle was carrying sand and passing from Akot, the Talathi, Akot, intervened and asked to produce requisite documents. It is alleged that even after verification of all the requisite documents, the Talathi illegally detained vehicle of the petitioner on the pretext that the vehicle of the petitioner was overloaded and he did not have the valid pass. Thereafter, vide order dated 05.05.2018, the Tahsildar, Akot, imposed the fine of Rs.2,40,366/- on the petitioner.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tahsildar, Akot, the petitioner preferred an Appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the MLR Code), before respondent No. 2 and the same was dismissed and, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court by present petition.
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2020 20:56:48 ::: wp8652.18 3
4. The main question before this Court is whether the Talathi, was the competent officer to seize the vehicle of the petitioner under Section 48(8) of the MLR Code. In this regard, in the similar facts and circumstances, this Court by the judgment dated 27.03.2019 rendered in Writ Petition No. 4452 of 2018, has taken a view that the seizure under Section 48 of the MLR Code by any officer below the rank of the Tahsildar, is not permissible. In the instant case, undisputedly, the seizure is by the Talathi, who is certainly below the rank of Tahsildar. So, the basic action itself in the present case is illegal and as such the consequent action, which suffers with fundamental error, stands vitiated.
5. Accordingly, we are inclined to allow the petition. Writ Petition is, accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 05.05.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. The whole action taken by the respondents is declared to be illegal and vitiated. The seized vehicle bearing registration No. MH-27 - X
- 8546 be released to the petitioner forthwith. ::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2020 20:56:48 ::: wp8652.18 4
6. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in these terms. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2020 20:56:48 :::