Bombay High Court
Prayan S/O Kailasrao Shelke vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, ... on 20 December, 2021
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
wp5405.21+3.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5405/2021
Prayan Kailasrao Shelke...Versus...State of Maharashtra and ors
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5406/2021
Parvej Jibrail Khan Pathan...Versus...State of Maharashtra and ors
and
WRIT PETITION NO. 5407/2021
Saurabhsingh Thamendrasingh Chouhan...Versus...State of Maharashtra and
ors
and
WRIT PETITION NO. 5408/2021
Gaurav Rajesh Chourasiya...Versus...State of Maharashtra and ors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------
Mr. A.R.Ingole, Advocate for petitioners
Ms. T.Khan, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 20/12/2021 Heard Mr. Ingole, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Khan, learned AGP for respondents.
In all these petitions, a composite order has been passed by the Tahsildar, exercising powers under Section 48(7) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, imposing penalty as well as under Section 48(8)(2) of the said Code imposing penalty for the use of the vehicles.
Mr. Ingole, learned counsel for the petitioners upon instructions does not press these petitions in so far as imposition of penalty/fine under Section 48(7) of the MLR wp5405.21+3.odt 2 Code is concerned.
Learned AGP fairly concedes that the impugned orders in so far as they indicate the exercise of powers by the Tahsildar under Section 48(8)(2) of the MLR Code, the same would clearly be without jurisdiction, in view of which, the impugned order in so far as they indicate exercise of jurisdiction by the Tahsildar under Section 48(8)(2) of the MLR Code, is quashed and set aside and the matters are remanded back to the Respondent No.3, who will issue a fresh notices to the petitioners in the matter of imposing penalty under Section 48(8)(2) of the MLR Code and after granting an opportunity of being heard, pass necessary and appropriate order. Since Mr. Ingole, learned counsel for the petitioners, upon instructions states that the vehicles would be produced before the Respondent No. 3 as and when required by the Respondent No. 3 by a notice in writing duly served upon the petitioners, the vehicles be released in the custody of the respective petitioners upon their furnishing an undertaking to the above effect and the bond equal to the value of the vehicles before the SDO.
The petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
Digitally sign byRAJESH
rvjalit VASANTRAO JALIT
Location:
Signing Date:21.12.2021 14:22