Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: mlrc in Venue Venture Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 13 March, 2024Matching Fragments
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2. By the present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 28th November, 2023 ("impugned order") passed by Respondent No.3 under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short "the MLRC, 1966"). By the impugned order, the Petitioner has been ordered to pay an amount of Rs.43,47,688.34/- towards royalty and penalty within a period of 7 days.
MARCH 13, 2024 Utkarsh
7.wp(l).2078.2024.doc Since this payment was not made by the Petitioner, Respondent No.3 issued a Notice dated 28th December, 2023 asking the Petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount, failing which action under Section 174 of the MLRC, 1966 would be initiated. Subsequently, on 4 th January, 2024 Respondent No.3 has issued the impugned proclamation directing the Petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount within 15 days, failing which action under Section 174 of the MLRC, 1966 would be initiated.
MARCH 13, 2024 Utkarsh
7.wp(l).2078.2024.doc
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that there was no excavation of minor minerals because what was excavated from the said land was used on the very same land and stored thereunder. It was basically used for backfilling and the said material was neither transported out from the said land nor sold for any commercial purpose. He submitted that in fact it is not even the case of the State Authorities that what was excavated was either transported out from the said land or used for any commercial purpose. He submitted that once this is the case, the provisions of Section 48(7) of the MLRC, 1966 cannot be invoked for levying any penalty or royalty on the Petitioner.
7.wp(l).2078.2024.doc have clearly held that where excavation on ones land takes place and the said material is used on the very same land, and not transported out or used for any commercial purpose, then what is excavated can never be termed as minor minerals and therefore there would be no question of levying any penalty or royalty, or invoking the provisions of Section 48(7) of the MLRC, 1966.
6. On the other hand, Ms.Chavan, the learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that non-compliance by the Petitioner would lie in not securing approval for the extraction of the approximately 344.89 brass that was redeployed on the said land. According to Ms.Chavan, regardless of removal of soil from the land from which it is excavated, one must seek permission to extract the said soil. She submitted that it does not matter that the extracted soil was used for backfilling and development of the very same land.