Bombay High Court
Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 19 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:14821
1/8 24.Judg.wp.2041.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2041 OF 2020
Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
A Government Company under Section 617
of the Indian Companies Act, having its
Regd. Office at Indian Oil Bhavan, G/9, Ali
Yawar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai.
Chief Manager Mahendra D. Hemane,
Indian Oil Corporation Limited. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary, Revenue and Forests
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
3. The Collector, Wardha.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Wardha. ... RESPONDENTS
Mr. P. A. Gupta, Advocate h/f Mr. A. V. Khare, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. R. V. Sharma, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATE : DECEMBER 19, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT
. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel for both sides, matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.
2/8 24.Judg.wp.2041.2020.odt
2. By way of present Petition, the Petitioner/Corporation takes exception to the order dated 23/3/2016 passed by the Collector, Wardha in Revenue Case No.24/LNA-22/2015-16 under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short, 'the Code').
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that land in question was leased out to the Petitioner by Respondent No.3 on 1/8/1965. The said lease was time to time renewed at the instance of Respondent No.3. However, since the year 2005, same was not renewed though the Petitioner made a request for renewal of the lease.
4. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No.3 by wrongly putting reliance on Rule 34 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971 restricted the tenure only for the period of five years and issued letter dated 17/10/2007 that renewal would not be granted for the period of 15 years as requested by the Petitioner.
5. It is pointed out that, for getting the lease rent of the land, series of communications were made between the parties. In the background of this 3/8 24.Judg.wp.2041.2020.odt factual position, for the period from 2005 to 2010 the lease amount of Rs.32,15,459/- was outstanding.
6. In the background of this factual position, the Respondent/Authority has issued notice under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for eviction and penalty for non-payment of the lease for the period from 2005 to 2010. The same was subject-matter of challenge before the Collector, Wardha.
7. In the impugned order, the Collector, Wardha has recorded that lease between the parties has been expired on 31/7/2010 and the same was not renewed thereafter. As such, the Petitioner/Corporation is unauthorisedly occupying the land of the State Government. It is also recorded that the Petitioner did not pay any amount towards lease for the period from 1/8/2005 to 31/7/2010. Hence, by invoking the powers under Section 53 of the Code, the Collector, Wardha has imposed the penalty of Rs.2,57,30,600/-.
8. The penalty being imposed without considering provisions of law and without referring the fact as to how much rent was outstanding, Petitioner filed appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. However, the Commissioner 4/8 24.Judg.wp.2041.2020.odt also failed to consider the controversy in the matter and mechanically accepted the reasons stated by the Collector and vide impugned order dated 29/3/2019 dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner.
9. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Divisional Commissioner, present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 20/8/2020 interfered in the matter and granted stay to the orders passed by the Collector, Wardha and Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, subject to deposit of amount of Rs.3.00 Crores within a period of six weeks. The Petitioner has complied with the order passed by this Court by depositing the amount of Rs.3.00 Crores with the Registry of this Court. It is further pointed out that by order dated 26/11/2025 this Court has further directed the Petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.85,95,900/- before this Court. Accordingly, the same was also deposited by the Petitioner. As such, it is clear that Petitioner/Corporation has shown their bona fide in the matter.
10. The learned AGP has raised objection about jurisdiction of the Petition and submitted that the Petitioner is having alternative remedy to file revision before the State Government, wherein their grievance can be 5/8 24.Judg.wp.2041.2020.odt redressed. Hence, according to the learned AGP, this Petition is not tenable in the eye of law.
11. In the present case, in my opinion, the Petitioner has shown their bona fide by promptly depositing the amount as per the directions of this Court. As such, total amount at around Rs.3.86 Crores is deposited with the Registry of this Court. So also it is seen from the impugned order that prima facie the Collector passed illegal order and same was confirmed by the Commissioner, without considering the scope of Section 53 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Therefore, in my view, considering the aspect of the matter, this Petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that Petitioner has an alternative remedy in the matter.
12. Adverting to the merits of the present Petition, the Petitioner has specifically pointed out Section 53(3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, which reads thus :
"53. Summary eviction of person unauthorisedly occupying land vesting in Government.
(1) x x x
(2) x x x
(3) A person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of land after he has ceased to be entitled to continue the use, occupation or possession by virtue of any of the reasons specified in 6/8 24.Judg.wp.2041.2020.odt sub-section (1), shall also be liable at the discretion of the Collector to pay a penalty not exceeding [two times the assessment or rent for land or such amount as may be prescribed, whichever is higher,], for the period of such unauthorised use or occupation."
As per this provision, if the person found to be unauthorisedly occupying or wrongly in possession of the land, then the Collector may impose the penalty but same should not be exceeding two times the assessment or rent for land of such amount as determined.
13. Here in the present case, admittedly the impugned notice was issued by the office of Collector dated 15/3/2016 regarding non-payment of lease rent for the period from 1/8/2005 to 31/7/2010 and demand of Rs.43,66,084/- was made towards the lease rent of the property. It is also admitted fact that Petitioner/Corporation has not paid the amount of lease for the period from 1/8/2005 to 31/7/2010. Therefore, in my opinion, as pointed out from the communication dated 13/4/2016, which was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Wardha to the Management of Petitioner/Corporation, shows that outstanding amount for the period from 1/8/2005 to 31/7/2010 Rs.32,15,459/- against the Petitioner. Therefore, if Section 53 of the Code is made applicable, in any case, twice of the rent amount cannot be Rs.2,57,30,600/-.
7/8 24.Judg.wp.2041.2020.odt
14. Hence, prima facie, I am of the opinion that the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the Section 53(3) of the Code. It is seen from the order of Commissioner that there is no consideration to the grounds raised by the Petitioner while deciding the Appeal. The learned Commissioner seems to have mechanically decided the Appeal without applying his mind as well as without considering the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
15. In the circumstances, Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 23/3/2016 passed by the Collector, Wardha as well as the order dated 29/3/2019 passed by the Commissioner, Nagpur are hereby quashed and set aside.
16. The matter is remanded back to the Collector, Wardha to determine the penalty strictly as per the provisions of Section 53(3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The Collector should complete this exercise within a period of three weeks.
17. The Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.1.50 Crores from the amount deposited in this Court and remaining amount is 8/8 24.Judg.wp.2041.2020.odt directed to be transferred to the Collector, Wardha which will be released or adjusted subject to decision of the Collector in the matter.
18. In the meantime, no coercive action shall be taken till decision of the Collector, Wardha in the matter.
19. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.] vijaya Signed by: Mrs. V.G. Yadav Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 23/12/2025 13:03:01