Bombay High Court
Ravindra S/O. Bapurao Dube vs The Collector, Yavatmal And Others on 23 March, 2016
Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp3925.15 & others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
(I) WRIT PETITION NO.3925 OF 2015
Ravindra s/o Bapurao Dube,
aged 33 years, occupation :
agriculturist and business,
r/o Chikhalgaon, Tahsil Wani,
District Yavatmal. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) The Collector, District
Yavatmal.
2) Sub-Divisional Officer, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
3) The Tahsildar, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
4) Naib Tahsildar, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
5) Revenue Inspector (Mandal
Adhikari), Tahsil Karyalaya,
Wani, Tahsil Wani, District
Yavatmal.
6) The Talathi, Village Wani,
Taluq Wani, District Yavatmal. ... Respondents
-----------------
Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents.
----------------
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:06:37 :::
2 wp3925.15 & others
(II) WRIT PETITION NO.3630 OF 2015
Shri Sanjay s/o Ramchandra
Junghari, aged about 43 years,
occupation : agriculturist and
business, r/o near Ranganath Swami
Mandir, Nagar Parishad School No.4,
Prabhag No.3, Wani, Tahsil Wani,
District Yavatmal. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) The Collector, District
Yavatmal.
2) Sub-Divisional Officer, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
3) The Tahsildar, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
4) Naib Tahsildar, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
5) Revenue Inspector (Mandal
Adhikari), Tahsil Karyalaya,
Wani, Tahsil Wani, District
Yavatmal.
6) The Talathi, Village Sawargaon,
Taluq Wani, District Yavatmal. ... Respondents
--------------
Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents.
---------------
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:06:37 :::
3 wp3925.15 & others
(III) WRIT PETITION NO.3631 OF 2015
1) Shri Ravi s/o Gulabrao Sarode,
aged 32 years,
occupation : business,
r/o Sadhankarwadi,
Chikhalgaon, Wani, Tahsil :
Wani, District Yavatmal.
2) Pravin s/o Gulabrao Sarode,
aged 36 years, occupation :
business, r/o Akshara Family
Garden Restaurant, Maregaon,
Tahsil Maregaon, District Yavatmal. ... Petitioners
- Versus -
1) The Collector, District
Yavatmal.
2) Sub-Divisional Officer, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
3) The Tahsildar, Maregaon,
District Yavatmal.
4) Naib Tahsildar, Maregaon,
District Yavatmal.
5) Revenue Inspector (Mandal
Adhikari), Tahsil Karyalaya,
Maregaon, Tahsil Maregaon,
District Yavatmal.
6) The Talathi, Village Maregaon,
Taluq Maregaon, District
Yavatmal. ... Respondents
--------------
Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for petitioners.
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:06:37 :::
4 wp3925.15 & others
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents.
---------------
(IV) WRIT PETITION NO.3926 OF 2015
Shri Sunil Pralhadrao Yemulwar,
aged about 48 years,
occupation : agriculturist and
business, r/o In front of Narayan
Niwas, Wani, Tahsil Wani,
District Yavatmal. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) The Collector, District
Yavatmal.
2) Sub-Divisional Officer, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
3) The Tahsildar, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
4) Naib Tahsildar, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
5) Revenue Inspector (Mandal
Adhikari), Tahsil Karyalaya,
Wani, Tahsil Wani, District
Yavatmal.
6) The Talathi, Village Sawarla,
Tahsil Wani, District Yavatmal. ... Respondents
--------------
Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents.
---------------
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:06:37 :::
5 wp3925.15 & others
(V) WRIT PETITION NO.3929 OF 2015
1) Shri Ravi Ramchandra Junghari,
aged about 31 years,
occupation : agriculturist and
business, r/o behind Ranganath Swami
Mandir, Nagar Parishad School No.4,
Prabhag No.3, Wani, Tahsil Wani,
District Yavatmal.
2) Satish N. Pimple, aged about 48
years, occupation : Government
Contractor, r/o Nandepara Road,
Laxminagar, Wani, District
Yavatmal. ... Petitioners
- Versus -
1) The Collector, District
Yavatmal.
2) Sub-Divisional Officer, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
3) The Tahsildar, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
4) Naib Tahsildar, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
5) Revenue Inspector (Mandal
Adhikari), Tahsil Karyalaya,
Wani, Tahsil Wani, District
Yavatmal.
6) The Talathi, Village Sawarla,
Taluq Wani, District Yavatmal. ... Respondents
--------------
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:06:37 :::
6 wp3925.15 & others
Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents.
---------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 23, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) :
Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of Adv. Samarth for the petitioners and Shri Fulzele, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
2) Following quantity of sand is seized from the petitioners by the respondents under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 :
Writ Petition No.3925/2015 - 10 brass Writ Petition No.3630/2015 - 150 brass Writ Petition No.3631/2015 - 250 brass Writ Petition No.3926/2015 - 110 brass Writ Petition No.3929/2015 - 100 brass The petitioners question it.::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:06:37 :::
7 wp3925.15 & others
3) Adv. Samarth submits that petitioners have purchased said sand for constructing their own buildings and the same was stocked on private lands.
Without any opportunity, same has been seized. He further contends that though seizure is stated to be under Section 48(7) or 48(8) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, no order to that effect has been served upon any of the petitioners and the stand of the petitioners that they have purchased it, therefore, has not been evaluated. He points out that receipts in token of payment of royalty of said sand were produced and those receipts are not found to be bogus by the respondents. As such, sand does not vest in State Government and hence, Section 48(7) or 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 has no application. He, therefore, seeks direction to respondents to release the sand forthwith as construction work of the petitioners is held up.
4) Shri Fulzele, learned Assistant Government ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:06:37 ::: 8 wp3925.15 & others Pleader for respondents, is relying upon reply-affidavit.
Apart from Section 48(7) and 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, he draws support from Rule 71 of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013. He states that even collection or stocking of sand is prohibited and, therefore, petitioners must produce a licence authorizing them to stock the sand. He invites our attention to reply to urge that an objection that petitions are premature has been specifically raised.
The Authorities have to pass orders and thereafter only a challenge of this nature can be entertained by this Court. He contends that sites at which sand was found stored did not belong to any of the petitioners and in any case, no construction work was seen anywhere.
He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petitions.
5) Adv. Samarth in reply submits that provisions of Rule 71 or 2013 Rules mentioned supra do not envisage a consumer or purchaser, who buys sand for ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:06:37 ::: 9 wp3925.15 & others erecting house or other similar structures. No licence is required for that purpose. He further points out that only in Writ Petition No. 3925/2015, sand is allegedly found to be stored on site not belonging to petitioner, but on the site, which is just opposite to the residence of petitioner. In all other cases, according to Adv. Samarth, sand is found on sites belonging to respective petitioners. He invites our attention to the fact that petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 3926/2015 and 3929/2015 required sand in huge quantity as they are Contractors by business. He further invites our attention to the fact that petitioner no.1 in Writ Petition No.3929/2015 is a supplier of building material. He adds that as sand does not vest in State Government, recourse to provisions of Section 48(7) and 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 or even to Rule 71 of the 2013 Rules mentioned supra, in the present circumstances, is unwarranted.
6) After hearing respective Counsel for the ::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:06:37 ::: 10 wp3925.15 & others parties, we find that Rule 71 of 2013 Rules mentioned supra stipulates that no person other than a quarry permit or quarry lease holder shall stock, sell or offer for sale any minor mineral mentioned in Scheduled I in any place in State except under a dealer's licence. The Rule prima facie may not apply if a person stocks sand for raising construction of his own house.
ig Similarly,
provisions of Section 48(7) and 48(8) of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 show that same envisage finding of a stock of sand, right to which vests in State. If right in such stock does not vest in State, those provisions cannot apply. Here petitioners have shown that stock of sand purchased by them was not belonging to State Government as royalty was paid.
The petitioners have also attempted to plead that they have purchased it from a duly licenced sand excavator.
7) The respondents have come up with a case that they did not find any construction undertaken by the petitioners. However, the stand is not very clear.
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:06:37 :::11 wp3925.15 & others
8) As there is no express order passed either seizing or confiscating the sand, we cannot at this juncture conclusively observe that a particular provision of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 has been or has not been violated. The said aspect needs to be looked into by the respondents by giving petitioners adequate opportunity. All the petitioners have made representations and those representations have remained pending for quite sometime. In fact, the petitions before this Court are pending since June 2015.
9) In this situation, we direct petitioners to appear before respective Tahsildar on 30/3/2016 and to abide by his further instructions in the matter. The said Tahsildar shall pass appropriate orders in this respect within a period of four weeks. If it is found that sand could not have been seized, same shall be released to the petitioners within next one week.
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:06:37 :::12 wp3925.15 & others
10) Thus, keeping all rival contentions open and with this arrangement, we dispose of the petitions. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:06:37 :::