Bombay High Court
Dhannu Vitthal Phapal vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 2 August, 2018
Author: R.M.Borde
Bench: R.M.Borde, A.M.Dhavale
{1}
wp425818.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
(1) WRIT PETITION NO.4258 OF 2018
Dhannu s/o Vitthal Phapal,
age: 28 years, Occ: Agril & Business,
R/o Belura, Tq. Majalgaon,
District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
02 The Collector, Beed.
03 The Deputy Collector, Beed.
04 The Tehsildar, Majalgaon,
Tehsil Office, Majalgaon,
Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed.
Mr.S.G.Dodya, advocate with Mr.P.N.Mule, advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr.P.N.Kutti, A.G.P. for Respondents.
(2) WRIT PETITION NO. 5124 OF 2018
Maruti S/o Ratanrao Ghugre
age 34 years, occ. business
R/o Behind Morya Super Shoppe,
Ambad, Taluka Ambad,
District Jalna Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{2}
wp425818.odt
02 The Collector,
Collector Office,
Jalna.
03 The Deputy Collector /
Sub Divisional Officer,
Ambad, Taluka Ambad,
District Jalna
04 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Ambad
Taluka Ambad, District Jalna Respondents
Mr. A.B. Kharosekar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for respondents.
WITH
(3) WRIT PETITION NO. 5265 OF 2018
Sunil s/o Hiraman Pawar
Age 32 years, occ. Agril. & Business,
R/o. Salapuri,
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
in the Department of Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The Collector,
Parbhani.
03 The Deputy Collector,
Pathri
Dist. Parbhani
04 The Tahsildar,
Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth
Dist. Parbhani Respondents
Mr. S.G. Jadhavar, advocate for petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{3}
wp425818.odt
Mr. A.B. Girase, G.P. for respondents.
WITH
(4) WRIT PETITION NO. 5266 OF 2018
Raichand s/o Harischandra Phad
Age 33 years, Occ. Agril & Business
R/o Kanerwadi, Tq. Parali(Vaij).
Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
in the Department of Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The Collector,
Parbhani.
03 The Deputy Collector,
Pathri, Dist. Parbhani
04 The Tahsildar,
Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth,
Dist. Parbhani Respondents
Mr. K.S. Chavan, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A.B. Girase, G.P. for respondents.
WITH
(5) WRIT PETITION NO. 5267 OF 2018
Jagdish s/o Manikrao Phad,
Age 32 years, Occ. Agri. & Business,
R/o T.P.S. Road, Shivaji Nagar,
Parali Vaijinath, Tq. Parali Vaijinath
Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{4}
wp425818.odt
in the Department of Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The Collector,
Parbhani
03 The Deputy Collector,
Pathri, Dist. Parbhani
04 The Tahsildar,
Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth
Dist. Parbhani. Respondents
Mr. S.G. Jadhavar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A.B. Girase, G.P. for respondents.
WITH
(6) WRIT PETITION NO. 5268 OF 2018
Anant s/o Balasaheb Mundhe
Age 35 years, Occ. Agril. & Business,
R/o Tokwadi, Tq. Parli,
Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
in the Department of Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The Collector,
Parbhani
03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri
Dist. Parbhani
04 The Tahsildar,
Pathri, Tq. Pathri,
Dist. Parbhani Respondents
Mr. K.S. Chavan, advocate for petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{5}
wp425818.odt
Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondents.
WITH
(7) WRIT PETITION NO.5269 OF 2018
Ramchandra s/o Udhavrao Lahane
Age 42 years, Occ. Agril. & Business,
R/o Makegaon, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
in the Department of Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
02 The Collector,
Parbhani
03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri
Dist. Parbhani
04 The Tahsildar,
Sonpeth Tq. Sonpeth,
Dist. Parbhani. Respondents
Mr. S.G. Jadhavar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A.B. Girase, G.P. for respondents.
WITH
(8) WRIT PETITION NO. 5270 OF 2018
Balasaheb s/o Uttamrao Chate
Age 48 years, Occ. Agril. & Business,
R/o Chukar Pimpari,
Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{6}
wp425818.odt
Through its Secretary
in the Department of Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The Collector,
Parbhani
03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri,
Dist. Parbhani
04 The Tahsildar,
Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth,
Dist. Parbhani. Respondents
Mr. S.G. Jadhavar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A.B. Girase, G.P. for respondents.
WITH
(9) WRIT PETITION NO. 5366 OF 2018
Suryakant s/o Deorao Bhore
Age 32 years, Occ. Agriculture
R/o Bramhan Galli, Wadwani,
Tq. Wadwani, District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
02 The Collector,
Collector Office,
Beed.
03 The Deputy Collector,
Sub Divisional Officer,
Wadwani, Taluka Wadwani
District Beed.
04 The Tahsildar,
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{7}
wp425818.odt
Tahsil Office, Wadwani,
Taluka Wadwani, District Beed. Respondents
Mr. A.B.Kharosekar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for respondents.
WITH
(10) WRIT PETITION NO. 5369 OF 2018
Balasaheb S/o Kondiba Ughade
Age 48 years, Occ. Driver,
R/o Babhali, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The District Collector, Parbhani
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani
03 The Sub Divisional Officer,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani
04 The Tahsildar Parbhani,
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani Respondents
Mr. M.P. Kale, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for respondents.
WITH
(11) WRIT PETITION NO. 5440 OF 2018
Baliram S/o Dagdoba Navghare
Age 41 years, Occ. Agril. & Business,
R/o Mudgal,, Tq. Pathri,
Dist. Parbhani Petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{8}
wp425818.odt
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
in the Department of Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The Collector,
Parbhani
03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri
Dist. Parbhani
04 The Tahsildar,
Sonpeth Tq. Sonpeth
Dist. Parbhani. Respondents
Mr. K.S. Chavan, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for the State.
WITH
(12) WRIT PETITION NO. 5441 OF 2018
Vinayak S/o Baburao Kendre
Age 33 years, Occ. Agri. & Business
R/o Mudgal, Tq. Pathri,
Dist. Parbhani Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
in the Department of Revenue & Forest
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The Collector,
Parbhani
03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri,
Dist. Parbhani
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{9}
wp425818.odt
04 The Tahsildar,
Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth,
Dist. Parbhani. Respondents
Mr. K.S. Chavan, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for respondents.
WITH
(13) WRIT PETITION NO. 5495 OF 2018
Umakant S/o Bhagwanrao Gaikwad
Age 30 years, Occ. Agril.
R/o Nitrud, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The District Collector,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani
03 The Additional Collector,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani
04 The Sub Divisional Officer,
Pathari, Tq.Pathari
Dist. Parbhani
05 The Tahsildar,
Pathari, Tq.Pathari
Dist. Parbhani
06 The Circle Inspector,
Hadgaon, Tq. Pathari
Tq. Pathari, Dist. Parbhani
07 The Police Inspector,
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{10}
wp425818.odt
Police Station, Pathari
Tq. Pathari, Dist. Parbhani Respondents
Mr. S.K. Chavan, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for respondents.
WITH
(14) WRIT PETITION NO. 5507 OF 2018
Govind s/o Mahadeo Tidke
Age 29 years, Occ. Agril.
R/o Chinch Wadgaon, Tq. Wadwani
Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Revenue & Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
02 The District Collector,
Parbhani, District Parbhani.
03 The Additional Collector,
Parbhani, District Parbhani.
04 The Sub Divisional Officer,
Pathri, Tq. Pathri,
District Parbhani.
05 The Tahsildar,
Pathri, Tq. Pathri,
District Parbhani.
06 The Circle Inspector,
Hadgaon, Tq. Pathari,
District Parbhani.
07 The Police Inspector,
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{11}
wp425818.odt
Police Station, Pathari,
Tq.Pathari, District
Parbhani. Respondents
Mr.S.K.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.V.S.Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents no.1 to 7.
WITH
(15) WRIT PETITION NO.6839 OF 2018
Baburao s/o Ramarao Birajdar,
age: 57 years, Occ: Agri.,
R/o Killari, Tq. Ausa, Dist.Latur. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector,
Collector Office,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
03 Sub Divisional Officer,
Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.
04 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Omerga,
Tq.Omerga, Dist.Osmanabad. Respondents
Mr.L.C.Patil, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(16) WRIT PETITION NO.6840 OF 2018
Bhalchandra s/o Mahadeo Khobre,
age: 48 years, Occ: Agri.,
R/o Nadi-Hatarga, Nilanga,
District Latur. Petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{12}
wp425818.odt
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector,
Collector Office,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
03 Sub Divisional Officer,
Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.
04 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Omerga,
Tq.Omerga, Dist.Osmanabad. Respondents
Mr.L.C.Patil, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(17) WRIT PETITION NO.6841 OF 2018
Ravindra s/o Chandrakant Lamture,
age: 60 years, Occ: Agri.,
R/o Kukalgaon, Tq. Nilanga,
Dist.Osmanabad. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector,
Collector Office,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
03 Sub Divisional Officer,
Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.
04 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Omerga,
Tq.Omerga, Dist.Osmanabad. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{13}
wp425818.odt
Mr.L.C.Patil, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(18) WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2018
Balaji s/o Revanappa Waghmode,
age: 36 years, Occ: Agri.,
R/o Kunali, Tq. Omerga,
District Osmanabad. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector,
Collector Office,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
03 Sub Divisional Officer,
Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.
04 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Omerga,
Tq.Omerga, Dist.Osmanabad. Respondents
Mr.L.C.Patil, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(19) WRIT PETITION NO.6946 OF 2018
Rajendra s/o Panditrao Deshmukh,
ager: 38 years, Occ: Agril. & Business,
R/o 85, Jain Galli, Hingoli,
District Hingoli. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{14}
wp425818.odt
through its Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The District Collector,
Hingoli,
Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.
03 Sub Divisional Officer,
Tal. Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli.
04 The Tahsildar, Hingoli,
Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. Respondents
Mr.M.P.Kale, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(20) WRIT PETITION NO.6950 OF 2018
Chandrakant s/o Ramakant More,
age: 22 years, Occ: Agril. & Business,
R/o Mangalmurti Road, Karegaon Road,
Parbhani, Tq. & District Parbhani. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The District Collector,
Hingoli,
Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.
03 Sub Divisional Officer,
Tal. Basmat, Tq. Basmat,
Dist. Hingoli.
04 The Tahsildar, Basmat,
Tq. Basmat, Dist. Hingoli. Respondents
Mr.M.P.Kale, advocate for the petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{15}
wp425818.odt
Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(21) WRIT PETITION NO.7049 OF 2018
Gorakh s/o Radhakisan Mote,
age: 43 years, Occ: Agril. & Business,
R/o More Galli, Gevrai, Tq.Gevrai,
District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through Principal Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
02 Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division,
Aurangabad.
03 The Collector, Beed,
District Beed.
04 Sub Divisional Officer,
Georai, Taluka Georai,
District Beed.
05 The Tahsildar,
Georai, Taluka Georai,
District Beed.
Mr.G.K.Naik-Thigle, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 5.
WITH
(22) WRIT PETITION NO.7057 OF 2018
Dnyaneshwar Mahadeo Jaybhay,
age: 42 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Vidyanagar, Beed.
Tq. & District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{16}
wp425818.odt
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector, Beed.
03 The Sub Divisional Officer,
Beed, Tq. & District Beed.
04 Tahsildar, Beed,
Tq. & District Beed. Respondents
Mr.S.J.Salunke, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.V.S.Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4.
WITH
(23) WRIT PETITION NO.7059 OF 2018
Nabaji s/o Rangnath Ambhore,
age: 46 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Plot No.19, Deolali Parisar,
Beed Bye Pass, Aurangabad,
Taluka & District Aurangabad. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
02 The Collector,
Collector Office,
Aurangabad.
03 The Police Inspector,
Police Station, Karmad,
Taluka & District Aurangabad.
04 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Aurangabad,
Taluka & District Aurangabad. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{17}
wp425818.odt
Mr.A.B.Kharosekar, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4.
WITH
(24) WRIT PETITION NO.7076 OF 2018
Satish Chandrasen Kadam,
age: 32 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Yelambghat, Tq. & District
Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector, Beed.
03 The Sub Divisional Officer,
Beed, Tq. & District Beed.
04 Tahsildar, Beed,
Tq. & District Beed. Respondents
Mr.S.J.Salunke, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.V.S.Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(25) WRIT PETITION NO.7077 OF 2018
Mahadev s/o Haridas Hulgunde,
age: 35 years, Occ: Driver,
R/o Nadi Hattarga, Tq. Nilanga,
District Latur. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{18}
wp425818.odt
02 The Collector,
Collector Office, Latur.
03 The Sub Divisional Officer,
Collector Office, Omerga,
District Osmanabad.
04 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Omerga,
Taluka Omerga,
District Osmanabad. Respondents
Mr.K.B.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.V.S.Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(26) WRIT PETITION NO.7133 OF 2018
Anantkumar s/o Munjaji Kurhe,
age: 45 years, Occ: Agril & Business,
R/o Khuja, Tq. Purna, Dist.Parbhani. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The District Collector, Parbhani,
Tq. & District Parbhani.
03 The Sub Divisional Officer,
Parbhani, Tq. & Dist.Parbhani.
04 The Tahsildar, Parbhani,
Tq. & District Parbhani. Respondents
Mr.M.P.Kale, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{19}
wp425818.odt
(27) WRIT PETITION NO.7142 OF 2018
Akash s/o Piraji Adkine,
age: 30 years, Occ: Agril. & Business,
R/o Rav Rajur, Tq. Palam,
District Parbhani. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The District Collector, Parbhani,
Tq. & District Parbhani.
03 The Sub Divisional Officer,
Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed,
District Parbhani.
04 The Tahsildar, Palam,
Tq. Plam, Dist.Parbhani. Respondent
Mr.Mahesh P. Kale, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.V.S.Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(28) WRIT PETITION NO.7143 OF 2018
Munjaji s/o Vitthal Lazade,
age: 65 years, Occ: Agril. & Business,
R/o Sawangi (Kh), Tq. & District
Parbhani. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The District Collector, Parbhani,
Tq. & District Parbhani.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{20}
wp425818.odt
03 The Sub Divisional Officer,
Parbhani, Taluka and
District Parbhani.
04 The Tahsildar, Parbhani,
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. Respondents
Mr.Mahesh P. Kale, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(29) WRIT PETITION NO.7235 OF 2018
Vithal s/o Kadaji Jadhav,
age: 38 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Pawarwadi, Tq. Majalgaon,
District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector,
Collector Office, Beed.
03 The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Majalgaon, Tq.Majalgaon,
District Beed.
04 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Majalgaon,
Tq.Majalgaon, Dist.Beed. Respondents
Mr.H.P.Jadhav, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(30) WRIT PETITION NO.7725 OF 2018
Jalindar s/o Malharrao Pisal,
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{21}
wp425818.odt
age: 52 years, Occ: Agril & Business,
R/o Teacher Colony, Georai,
Tq. Georai, District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
in the Department of
Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector,
Beed, Tq. & District Beed.
03 The Sub Divisional Officer,
Georai, District Beed,
04 The Tahsildar, Georai,
Tq.Georai, District Beed. Respondents
Mr.S.G.Kawade, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(31) WRIT PETITION NO.7726 OF 2018
Shrikisan s/o Rambhau Wadne,
age: 50 years, Occ: Agril. & Business,
R/o Vadgaon (Gunda), Tq. & District
Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The District Collector, Beed,
Tq. & District Beed.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{22}
wp425818.odt
03 The Sub Divisional Officer,
Beed, District Beed.
04 The Tahsildar, Beed,
Tq. & District Beed. Respondents
Mr.V.P.Savant, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(32) WRIT PETITION NO.7728 OF 2018
Dipak @ Aba s/o Pandurang Raut,
age: 36 years, Occ: Agriculture and
Business, R/o House No.1041,
Kasba Peth, Barshi, Taluka Barshi,
District Solapur. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
02 The Collector,
Collector Office, Beed.
03 The Sub Divisional Officer,
Majalgaon, Taluka Majalgaon,
District Beed.
04 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Majalgaon,
Taluka Majalgaon, District Beed. Respondents
Mr.A.B.Kharosekar, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(33) WRIT PETITION NO.7732 OF 2018
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{23}
wp425818.odt
Santosh s/o Haribhau Patait,
age: 34 years, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Gajanan Nagar, Majalgaon,
Tq.Majalgaon, District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
02 The Collector,
Collector Office, Beed.
03 The Deputy Collector,
Collector Office, Majalgaon,
District Beed.
04 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Majalgaon,
Taluka Majalgaon,
District Beed.
05 The Police Inspector,
Police Station (Rural),
Majalgaon, Dist.Beed. Respondents
Mr.S.V.Jadhawar, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(34) WRIT PETITION NO.4195 OF 2018
Ajay s/o Manik Mundhe,
age: 40 years, Occ: Agril & Business,
R/oManiknagar, Parli (Vaij),
Tq. Parli (Vaij), District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
in the Department of Revenue
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:41 :::
{24}
wp425818.odt
and Forest, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector, Parbhani.
03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri,
District Parbhani.
04 The Tahsildar, Pathri,
Tahsil Office, Pathri,
Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani. Respondents
Mr.K.S.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.C.S.Kulkarni, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(35) WRIT PETITION NO.4194 OF 2018
Vyankati s/o Parmeshwar Mundhe,
age: 40 years, Occ: Agril & Business,
R/o Zola, Tq. Gangakhed,
District Parbhani. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
in the Department of Revenue
and Forest, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector, Parbhani.
03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri,
District Parbhani.
04 The Tahsildar, Pathri,
Tahsil Office, Pathri,
Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani. Respondents
Mr.K.S.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{25}
wp425818.odt
WITH
(36) WRIT PETITION NO.4188 OF 2018
Balasaheb s/o Rambhau Nagargoje,
age: 33 years, Occ: Agril & Business,
R/o Mandekhali, Tq. Parli,
District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
in the Department of Revenue
and Forest, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector, Parbhani.
03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri,
District Parbhani.
04 The Tahsildar, Pathri,
Tahsil Office, Pathri,
Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani. Respondents
Mr.K.S.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.C.S.Kulkarni, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(37) WRIT PETITION NO.4187 OF 2018
Govind s/o Nivrutti Shep,
age: 38 years, Occ: Agril & Business,
R/o Shepwadi, Tq. Ambajogai,
District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
in the Department of Revenue
and Forest, Mantralaya,
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{26}
wp425818.odt
Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector, Parbhani.
03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri,
District Parbhani.
04 The Tahsildar, Pathri,
Tahsil Office, Pathri,
Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani. Respondents
Mr.K.S.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.C.S.Kulkarni, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(38) WRIT PETITION NO.4186 OF 2018
Babarao s/o Sheshrao Shep,
age: 40 years, Occ: Agril & Business,
R/o Shepwadi, Tq. Ambajogai,
District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
in the Department of Revenue
and Forest, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector, Parbhani.
03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri,
District Parbhani.
04 The Tahsildar, Pathri,
Tahsil Office, Pathri,
Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani. Respondents
Mr.K.S.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.C.S.Kulkarni, A.G.P. for Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{27}
wp425818.odt
WITH
(39) WRIT PETITION NO.4185 OF 2018
Ramchandra s/o Udhav Lahane,
age: 40 years, Occ: Agril & Business,
R/o Makegaon, Tq. Renapur,
District Latur. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
in the Department of Revenue
and Forest, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector, Parbhani.
03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri,
District Parbhani.
04 The Tahsildar, Pathri,
Tahsil Office, Pathri,
Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani. Respondents
Mr.K.S.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.P.K.Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(40) WRIT PETITION NO.4184 OF 2018
Shriram s/o Tukaram Kendre,
age: 48 years, Occ: Agril & Business,
R/o Faudewadi, Tq. Renapur,
District Latur. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
in the Department of Revenue
and Forest, Mantralaya,
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{28}
wp425818.odt
Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector, Parbhani.
03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri,
District Parbhani.
04 The Tahsildar, Pathri,
Tahsil Office, Pathri,
Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani. Respondents
Mr.K.S.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.C.S.Kulkarni, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(41) WRIT PETITION NO.4210 OF 2018
Jivan s/o Diliprao Jagtap,
age: 28 years, Occ: Agril and
Business, R/o Sawargaon,
Tq.Majalgaon, District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
02 The Collector, Beed.
03 The Deputy Collector, Beed.
04 The Tahsildar, Majalgaon,
Tahsil Office, Majalgaon,
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist.Beed. Respondents
Mr.S.G.Dodge, advocate with Mr.P.N.Muley, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(42) WRIT PETITION NO.8174 OF 2018
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{29}
wp425818.odt
Shivnath s/o Krushna Kedar,
age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture
and Business, R/o More Vasti,
At Post Rajpimpari,
Tq.Georai, District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
02 The Collector,
Collector Office,
Jalna.
03 The Deputy Collector,
Sub Divisional Officer,
Ambad, Taluka Ambad,
District Jalna.
04 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Ambad,
Taluka Ambad, District Jalna. Respondents
Mr.A.B.Kharosekar, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for Respondents.
WITH
(43) WRIT PETITION NO.8170 OF 2018
Premsing s/o Magansing Chungade,
ageL 55 years, Occ: Agricultural and
Business, R/o Ambedkar Nagar,
Rajput Mohalla, Ambad, Taluka Ambad,
District Jalna. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{30}
wp425818.odt
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
02 The Collector,
Collector Office,
Jalna
03 The Deputy Collector/
Sub Divisional Officer,
Ambad, Taluka Ambad,
District Jalna.
04 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Ambad,
Taluka Ambad, District Jalna. Respondents
Mr.A.B.Kharosekar, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.P.K.Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(44) WRIT PETITION NO.5726 OF 2018
Kachru s/o Bapurao Jadhav,
age: 34 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Umrad, Taluka and District
Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector,
Beed District Beed.
03 The Sub Divisional Officer,
Beed, District Beed.
04 The Tahsildar, Beed,
District Beed. Respondents
Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{31}
wp425818.odt
WITH
(45) WRIT PETITION NO.8061 OF 2018
Ajinkya s/o Baban Pawar,
age: 24 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Laxminagar, Bhingar,
Tq. & District Ahmednagar. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Revenue
and Forest, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
02 The Collector, Ahmednagar,
District Ahmednagar.
03 The Tahsildar, Ahmednagar,
District Ahmednagar. Respondents
Mr.P.A.Pisal, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
(46) WRIT PETITION NO.5145 OF 2018
Pravin s/o Kachru Jagtap,
age: 30 years, Occ:Business,
R/o Ban Shendra, Tq.Kannad,
District Aurangabad. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector,
Aurangabad,
District Aurangabad.
02 The Tahsildar and Taluka
Executive Magistrate, Kannad,
Tq. Kannad, Dist.Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{32}
wp425818.odt
03 The Police Inspector,
Police Station, Kannad (Rural),
Tq. Kannad, Dist.Aurangabad. Respondents
Mr.V.D.Salunke, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.P.K.Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(47) WRIT PETITION NO.5262 OF 2018
Devanand s/o Rajabhau Deshmukh,
age: 42 years, Occ: Agril. & Business,
R/o Sirsala, Tq. Parali (Vaij),
District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
in the Department of
Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector,
Parbhani.
03 The Deputy Collector,
Pathri, District Parbhani.
04 The Tahsildar,
Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth,
District Parbhani. Respondents
Mr.S.G.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.P.K.Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(48) WRIT PETITION NO.5263 OF 2018
Salim Khan s/o Mehandi Khan,
age: 23 years, Occ: Agril. & Business,
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{33}
wp425818.odt
R/o Paithan Mohalla Mandawa,
Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
in the Department of
Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector,
Parbhani.
03 The Deputy Collector,
Pathri, District Parbhani.
04 The Tahsildar,
Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth,
District Parbhani. Respondents
Mr.K.S,Chavan, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.P.K.Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(49) WRIT PETITION NO.5264 OF 2018
Balasaheb s/o Rambhau Nagargoje,
age: 32 years, Occ: Agril. & Business,
R/o Mandekhal, Tq. Parali (Vaij),
District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
in the Department of
Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector,
Parbhani.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{34}
wp425818.odt
03 The Deputy Collector,
Pathri, District Parbhani.
04 The Tahsildar,
Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth,
District Parbhani. Respondents
Mr.S.G.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.P.K.Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(50) WRIT PETITION NO.5271 OF 2018
M/s Tushar Fabricators,
through its Proprietor,
Shri Harischandra s/o Eknath Parekar,
age: 42 years, Occ: Agril. & Business,
R/o Dautpur, Tq. Parali (Vaij),
District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
in the Department of
Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector,
Parbhani.
03 The Deputy Collector,
Pathri, District Parbhani.
04 The Tahsildar,
Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth,
District Parbhani. Respondents
Mr.S.G.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{35}
wp425818.odt
WITH
(51) WRIT PETITION NO.5272 OF 2018
Jivraj s/o Ankush Gitte,
age: 48 years, Occ: Agril. & Business,
R/o Belamba, Tq. Parali (Vaij),
District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
in the Department of
Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector,
Parbhani.
03 The Deputy Collector,
Pathri, District Parbhani.
04 The Tahsildar,
Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth,
District Parbhani. Respondents
Mr.Kalyan S. Chavan, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for Respondents.
WITH
(52) WRIT PETITION NO.5273 OF 2018
Sambhaji s/o Gangaram Phad,
age: 47 years, Occ: Agril. & Business,
R/o Padmawati Galli, Parali Vaijinath,
Tq. Parali Vaijinath, District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{36}
wp425818.odt
through its Secretary,
in the Department of
Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector,
Parbhani.
03 The Deputy Collector,
Pathri, District Parbhani.
04 The Tahsildar,
Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth,
District Parbhani. Respondents
Mr.S.G.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for Respondents.
WITH
(53) WRIT PETITION NO.5274 OF 2018
Suhas s/o Vasantrao Kshirsagar,
age: 32 years, Occ: Agril. & Business,
R/o Ambajogai, Shikshak Colony,
Jijamata Chowk, Latur Road,
Ambajogai, District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
in the Department of
Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector,
Parbhani.
03 The Deputy Collector,
Pathri, District Parbhani.
04 The Tahsildar,
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{37}
wp425818.odt
Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth,
District Parbhani. Respondents
Mr.S.G.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for Respondents.
WITH
(54) WRIT PETITION NO.5275 OF 2018
Mahadeo s/o Shriram Gadade,
age: 34 years, Occ: Agril. & Business,
R/o Daudpur, Tq. Parali Vaijinath,
District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
in the Department of
Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector,
Parbhani.
03 The Deputy Collector,
Pathri, District Parbhani.
04 The Tahsildar,
Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth,
District Parbhani. Respondents
Mr.S.G.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for Respondents.
WITH
(55) WRIT PETITION NO.5276 OF 2018
Abhijit s/o Ashokrao Jadhav,
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{38}
wp425818.odt
age: 40 years, Occ: Agril. & Business,
R/o Shindi, Tq. Kaij,
District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
in the Department of
Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02 The Collector,
Parbhani.
03 The Deputy Collector,
Pathri, District Parbhani.
04 The Tahsildar,
Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth,
District Parbhani. Respondents
Mr.K.S.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for Respondents.
WITH
(56) WRIT PETITION NO. 5534 OF 2018
Keshav s/o Ranuji Gholap
Age 48 years, Occ. Business
R/o Jajid Jawala, Tq. Majalgaon
Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The Advocate General
Office of Advocate General Mumbai
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{39}
wp425818.odt
03 The Collector, Beed
04 The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Majalgaon, Tq. Majalagaon,
Dist. Beed.
05 Tahsildar, Majalgaon
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.
06 The Police Inspector,
Police Station, Majalgaon
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. Respondents
Mr. S.K. Chavan, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(57) WRIT PETITION NO. 5541 OF 2018
Narayan S/o Dnyanobad Taur
Age 47 years, Occ. Business
R/o Kawadgaon-Thadi,
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The Collector, Beed.
03 The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon
Dist. Beed.
04 Tahsildar, Majalgaon,
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.
05 The Police Inspector,
Police Station, Majalgaon
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{40}
wp425818.odt
Mr. S.K. Chavan, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(58) WRIT PETITION NO. 5601 OF 2018
Anant s/o Vishwambhar Korde
Age 33 years, Occ. Agril.
R/o Harki Limbgaon, Tq. Majalgaon
Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The Advocate General
Office of Advocate General Mumbai
03 The Collector, Beed.
04 The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon
Dist. Beed.
05 Tahsildar, Majalgaon,
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.
06 The Police Inspector,
Police Station, Majalgaon
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. Respondents
Mr. S.K. Chavan, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(59) WRIT PETITION NO. 5745 OF 2018
Kishor s/o Shamrao Bansode
Age 32 years, Occ. Agril.
r/o Bhamathan, Tq. Shrirampur
District Ahmednagar Petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{41}
wp425818.odt
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
02 The Collector,
Collector Office,
Ahmednagar
03 The Sub Divisional Officer
Shrirampur Division, Shrirampur
District Ahmednagar
04 The Tahsildar, Shrirampur
District Ahmednagar
05 The Circle Inspector,
Takali Bhan
Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar
06 The Talathi,
Bhamathan, Tq. Shrirampur
District Ahmednagar. Respondents
Mr. B.G. Sagade, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(60) WRIT PETITION NO. 5848 OF 2018
Ashok S/o Malakajappa Dubari
Aged 40 years, Occ.Agriculture
R/o Shirwal, Tq. Afzalpur,
Dist. Gulbarga (Karnataka State) Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary to the
Government of Maharashtra in
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{42}
wp425818.odt
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Fort,
Mumbai 32
02 The Collector, Osmanabad
03 The Deputy Collector,
Osmanabad
04 The Tahsildar, Omerga
Dist. Osmanabad
05 The Naib Tahsildar
Omerga,
Dist. Osmanabad
06 The Circle Officer,
Omerga, Tq. Omerga
Dist. Osmanabad
07 The Talathi
Khasgi, Tq.Omerga
Dist. Osmanabad
08 The Police Station Officer,
Police Station Omerga
Dist. Osmanabad Respondents
Mr. S.S. Choudhary, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(61) WRIT PETITION NO. 5849 OF 2018
Prashant s/o Babruwan Kale
Aged 35 years, Occ. Agriculture
and Driver,
R/o Lohara, Tq. Lohara
Dist. Osmanabad Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary to the
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{43}
wp425818.odt
Government of Maharashtra in
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Fort,
Mumbai 32
02 The Collector, Osmanabad
03 The Deputy Collector,
Osmanabad
04 The Tahsildar, Lohara
Dist. Osmanabad
05 The Naib Tahsildar
Lohara,
Dist. Osmanabad
06 The Talathi
Dhanuri, Tq. Lohara
Dist. Osmanabad
07 The Talathi
Dastapur, Tq. Lohara
Dist. Osmanabad
08 The Police Station Officer,
Police Station Murum
Dist. Osmanabad Respondents
Mr. S.S. Choudhary, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(62) WRIT PETITION NO. 5936 OF 2018
Rambhau S/o Vithalrao Dahe
Age 36 years, Occ. Agril. & Business
R/o Gajanan Nagar, Manwat,
Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{44}
wp425818.odt
in the Department of Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The Collector,
Parbhani
03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri
Dist. Parbhani
04 The Tahsildar,
Pathri, Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani Respondents
Mr. K.S. Chavan, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(63) WRIT PETITION NO. 5937 OF 2018
Mohan S/o Digambar Mahamale
Age 36 years, Occ. Agril. & Business
R/o Hadulki, Tq. Ahmedpur
Dist. Latur Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
in the Department of Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The Collector,
Parbhani
03 The Deputy Collector, Gangakhed
Dist. Parbhani
04 The Tahsildar,
Palam, Tq. Palam, Dist. Parbhani Respondents
Mr. K.S. Chavan, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(64) WRIT PETITION NO. 6107 OF 2018
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{45}
wp425818.odt
Nilesh Constructions
Through Proprietor Shankarrao Uttamrao Patil
Age 65 years, Occ. Business
R/o Lalbag Colony, Dhule Chufuli
At Nandurbar, Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
Revenue & Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
02 The Collector, Nandurbar
Dist. Nandurbar
03 Sub Divisional Officer,
Nandurbar, Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar
04 The Tahsildar, Nandurbar
Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar
05 Nilkanth Bhaurao Marathe
Age 35, Occ Job
R/o Vidyanagar Hill, Dhule Rd.
At Nandurbar, Tq & Dist. Nandurbar Respondents
Mr. R.M. Jain, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents 1 to 4.
Mr. A.R. Sayed, for respondent no. 5.
WITH
(65) WRIT PETITION NO. 6150 OF 2018
Krushna s/o Babasaheb Solanke
Age 32 years, Occ. Agri. & Business
R/o Pthri, Tq. Pathri
Dist. Parbhani Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{46}
wp425818.odt
Revenue & Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The District Collector,
Beed, Dist. Beed.
03 The Additional Collector,
Beed, Dist. Beed
04 The Sub Divisional Officer,
Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon
Dist. Beed.
05 The Tahsildar,
Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon
Dist. Beed.
06 The Circle Inspector,
Talkhed, Tq. Majalgaon
Dist. Beed.
07 The Police Inspector
Police Station, Majalgaon
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. Respondents
Mr. S.K. Chavan, advocate for petitioners.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(66) WRIT PETITION NO. 6231 OF 2018
Arjun S/o Gunwantrao Nayak
Age 35 Years, Occ. Agril. & Business
R/o Bhagwati, Tq. Sengaon
Dist. Hingoli Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The District Collector, Hingoli
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{47}
wp425818.odt
Tq. & Dist. Hingoli
03 The Sub Divisional Officer
Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli
04 The Tahsildar Hingoli
Tq. & Dist. Hingoli Respondents
Mr. M.P. Kale, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(67) WRIT PETITION NO. 6508 OF 2018
Shaikh Maheboob s/o Shaikh Biban
Age 32 Years, Occ. Agri. & Business
R/o Dhangar Takali, Tq. Purna
Dist. Parbhani Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The District Collector, Parbhani
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani
03 The Sub Divisional Officer
Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed
Dist. Parbhani
04 The Tahsildar Purna
Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani Respondents
Mr. M.P. Kale, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(68) WRIT PETITION NO. 6653 OF 2018
Kanifnath Baburao Nagare
Age 48 years, Occ. Business
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{48}
wp425818.odt
R/o Sangam Jalgaon, Tq. Georai
Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai
02 Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division
Aurangabad
03 The Collector, Beed
District Beed.
04 Sub Divisional Officer
Georai, Taluka Georai
District Beed.
05 The Tahsildar
Georai, Taluka Georai
District Beed. Respondents
Mr. G.K. Thigale, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(69) WRIT PETITION NO. 6827 OF 2018
Shanker s/o Babulal Pathan
Age 28 years, Occ. Business
R/o Lane No. 6 Hussain Colony
Garkheda Parisar,
Aurangabad
Tq. & Dist Aurangabad. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Revenue & Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{49}
wp425818.odt
02 The District Collector,
Jalna, Dist. Jalna
03 The Sub Divisional Officer,
Ambad, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna
04 The Tahsildar
Ambad, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna Respondents
Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(70) WRIT PETITION NO. 8205 OF 2018
Azar Ayyub Gavandi
Age 38 years, Occ. Agril.
R/o Lohara, Tq. Lohara
Gavandi Plotting
Dist. Osmanabad Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
02 The Collector
Collector Office
Osmanabad
03 The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Sub-Divisional Office
Omerga, Tq. Omerga
Dist. Osmanabad
04 The Tahsildar
Tahsildar Office,
Lohara, Tq. Lohara
Dist. Osmanabad Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{50}
wp425818.odt
Mr. R.P. Adgaonkar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondents.
WITH
(71) WRIT PETITION NO. 8206 OF 2018
Zaheer Ahmed Ali Ma Aziz
Age 45 years, Occ. Transporter
R/o 11-2-30, Kanteshwar
Nizamabad
Tq. & Dist. Nizamabad Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The Collector, Nanded
Dist. Nanded
03 Sub Divisional Officer
Nanded, Tq. & Dist Nanded
04 The Tahsildar, Biloli
Tq. & Dist. Nanded Respondents
Mr. Syed Azizoddin R., advocate for petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(72) WRIT PETITION NO. 8207 OF 2018
Swami Santhosh Siddappa
Age 42 years, Occ. Business
R/o 2-5-71, Near Head Post Office
Bodhan, Tq. Bodhan, Dist. Nizamabad Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{51}
wp425818.odt
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
02 The Collector, Nanded
Dist. Nanded.
03 Sub Divisional Officer,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded
04 The Tahasildar, Biloli,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded. Respondents
Mr. Syed Azizoddin R., advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(73) WRIT PETITION NO. 8208 OF 2018
P. Naga Bhushanam Mariah
Age 42 years, Occ. Transporter
R/o 6-12, Belal Farm Bodhan
Nizamabad, Tq. & Dist. Nizamabad Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The Collector, Nanded
Dist. Nanded
03 Sub Divisional Officer
Nanded
Tq. & Dist Nanded
04 The Tahasildar, Biloli,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded Respondents
Mr. Syed Azizoddin R, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{52}
wp425818.odt
(74) WRIT PETITION NO. 8209 OF 2018
Kasarelli Hanmanthu Gangaram
Age 38 years, Occ. Transporter
R/o H No. 5-55/1, Banjagally,
Sloora, Nizamabad
Tq & Dist. Nizamabad (T.S.) Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The Collector, Nanded
Dist. Nanded.
03 Sub Divisional Officer
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded
04 The Tahasildar, Biloli
Tq. & Dist. Nanded Respondents
Mr. Syed Azizoddin R., advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(75) WRIT PETITION NO. 7842 OF 2018
Dhanraj s/o Sandipan Bidgar
Age 38 years, occ. Agril & Business
R/o Dautpur, Tq. Parli Vaijnath
District Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The Collector
Collector Office Beed
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{53}
wp425818.odt
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
03 The District Mining Officer
Collector Office, Beed
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
04 The Tahsildar
Tahsil Office Majalgaon
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed Respondents
Mr. A.V. Rakh, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(76) WRIT PETITION NO. 7540 OF 2018
Suresh s/o Haribhau More
Age 47 years, Occ. Agril. & Business
R/o Roulasgaon,
Tq. & Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
02 The Collector,
Collector Office,
Beed.
03 The Sub Divisional Officer
Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
04 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Georai
Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed. Respondents
Mr. A.B. Kharosekar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(77) WRIT PETITION NO. 7539 OF 2018
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{54}
wp425818.odt
Subhash s/o Vitthalrao Ghane
Age 40 years, occ. Agril. & Business
R/o Gondi, Tq. Ambad
District Jalna Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya Mumbai 400 032.
02 The Collector,
Collector Office,
Jalna
03 The Sub Divisional Officer
Jalna, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna
04 The Tahsildar
Tahsil Office, Ambad
Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna Respondents
Mr. A.B. Kharosekar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(78) WRIT PETITION NO. 7538 OF 2018
Hari s/o Babasaheb Jadhav
Age 34 years, occ. Agril. & Business
R/o At Adola, Post Gangamasla
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
02 The Collector,
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{55}
wp425818.odt
Collector Office,
Beed
03 The Sub Divisional Officer
Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon
Dist. Beed.
04 The Tahsildar
Tahsil Office, Majalgaon
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed Respondents
Mr. A.B. Kharosekar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(79) WRIT PETITION NO. 7537 OF 2018
Vitthal s/o Rangnath Solunke
Age 55 years, occ. Agril. & Business
R/o Gondi, Tq. Ambad
Dist. Jalna Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
02 The Collector
Collector Office,
Jalna
03 The Sub Divisional Officer
Jalna, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna
04 The Tahsildar
Tahsil Office, Ambad
Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna Respondents
Mr. A.B. Kharosekar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{56}
wp425818.odt
WITH
(80) WRIT PETITION NO. 7464 OF 2018
Vishnu Kalidas Mundhe
age 40 years, occ. Agri.
R/o Govindpur, Tq. Kalamb
District Osmanabad Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai
02 The Collector
Collector Office, Osmanabad
03 The Sub-Divisional Officer
Collector Office, Osmanabad
04 The Tahsildar
Tahsil Office, Osmanabad
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad Respondents
Mr. H.P. Bondar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(81) WRIT PETITION NO. 7869 OF 2018
Hanif Shikalgar S/o Abdul Kadar
age 28 years, occ. Business
R/o Sathe nagar, Murum
Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{57}
wp425818.odt
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
02 The Collector,
Collector Office,
Osmanabad
03 The Deputy Collector /
Sub Divisional Officer,
Omerga, Tq. Omerga
Dist. Osmanabad
04 The Tahsildar
Tahsil Office, Omerga
Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. Respondents
Mr. A.B. Kharosekar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(82) WRIT PETITION NO. 7425 OF 2018
Ukha s/o Nathu Patil
age 53 years, occ. Agril
R/o Upparpind, Shirpur
Tq Shirpur, Dist Dhule Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai
02 The District Collector,
Dhule, Dist. Dhule.
03 The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Shirpur, Tq Shirpur,
Dist. Dhule.
04 The Tahsildar
Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur
Dist. Dhule. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{58}
wp425818.odt
Mr. U.B. Bondar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(83) WRIT PETITION NO. 8017 OF 2018
Shubham Bhagwanrao Yadhav
Age 24 years, occ Agril
r/o Khadka, Tq. Sonpeth
Dist. Parbhani Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The District Collector,
Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani
03 The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Pathari, Tq. Pathari
Dist. Parbhani
04 The Tahsildar, Sonpeth
Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani Respondents
Mr. S.G. Jadhavar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(84) WRIT PETITION NO. 8012 OF 2018
Amol Prakash Tandale
age 29 years, occ. Agril.
R/o Parali(Vaijainath),
Tq. Parali(Vaijainath)
Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{59}
wp425818.odt
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The District Collector
Parbhani, Tq. & Dist Parbhani
03 The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Pathri, Tq. Pathri,
Dist. Parbhani
04 The Tahsildar, Sonpeth
Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani Respondents
Mr. S.G. Jadhavar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(85) WRIT PETITION NO. 7997 OF 2018
Ramesh Atmarao Shinde
Age 39 years, occ. Agri
R/o Vazur (Kh), Tq. Manwat
Dist. Parbhani Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02 The District Collector,
Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani
03 The Sub-Divisional Officer
Sailu, Tq. Sailu,
Dist. Parbhani
04 The Tahsildar, Manwat
Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani. Respondents
Mr. U.L. Momale, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{60}
wp425818.odt
WITH
(86) WRIIT PETITION NO. 8015 OF 2018
Gangadhar s/o Kashinath Rajgude
Age 45 years, Occ. Business
R/o Kawadgaon (Zirpa)
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
02 The Collector,
Collector Office,
Beed,
03 The Sub Divisional Officer
Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon
Dist. Beed
04 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Majalgaon
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. Respondents
Mr. A.B. Kharosekar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(87) WRIT PETITION NO. 8020 OF 2018
Kailas Bhuta Sonawane
Age 45 years, Occ. Business
R/o Vaijnath
Tq. Yerandol.
Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{61}
wp425818.odt
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through
The Secretary
Revenue and Forest department
Mantralaya, Mumbai
02 The Collector,
Jalgaon
Collector Office,
Jalgaon
03 The Sub Divisional Magistrate
Yerandol Sub Division
Yerandol, Dist. Jalgaon
04 The Tahsildar, Dharangaon
Tahasil Office,
Tq. Dharangaon, Dist.Jalgaon Respondents
Mr. K.B. Borde Patil, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(88) WRIT PETITION NO. 7873 OF 2018
Prabhakar s/o Pundlik Patil
Age 39 years, occ. Business
R/o House No. 237, At Kudare
Post Palaspa, Tq. Panvel
Dist. Raigad
At Present r/o Itke Corner
Parali Vaijnath, Tq. Parali Vaijnath
Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
02 The Collector,
Collector Office,
Beed.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{62}
wp425818.odt
03 The Deputy Collector /
sub Divisional Officer
Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon
Dist. Beed.
04 The Tahsildar
Tahsil Office, Majalgaon
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. Respondents
Mr. A.B. Kharosekar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(89) WRIT PETITION NO. 7868 OF 2018
Govind s/o Shivaji Pathade
age 39 years, occ. Business
r/o Murud, Tq. Latur
Dist. Latur Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya,Mumbai 32.
02 The Collector
Collector Office,
Beed.
03 The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon
Dist. Beed.
04 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Majalgaon
Tq. Majalagaon, Dist. Beed. Respondents
Mr. H.P. Jadhav, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{63}
wp425818.odt
WITH
(90) WRIT PETITION NO. 7852 OF 2018
Vilas s/o Bhagwat Shendge
Age 40 years, occ. Agri.
R/o Barshi, Tq. Barshi
Dist. Solapur Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
02 The Collector,
Collector Office,
Beed.
03 The Sub-Divisional Officer
Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.
04 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Majalgaon
Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.
05 The Police Inspector
Police Station Majalgaon
Dist. Beed. Respondents
Mr. S.V. Jadhavar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(91) WRIT PETITION NO. 7877 OF 2018
Tatyarao s/o Zumbar Bhargande
Age 54 years, Occ. Agri.
R/o Kasti (Bk.), Tq. Lohara
Dist. Osmanabad Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{64}
wp425818.odt
Through the Secretary to the
Government of Maharashtra in
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Fort,
Mumbai 32.
02 The Collector, Osmanabad
Dist. Osmanabad
03 The Deputy Collector,
Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad
04 The Tahsildar, Lohara
Dist. Osmanabad
05 The Naib Tahsildar
Lohara, Dist. Osmanabad
06 The Circle Officer,
Lohara, Tq. Lohara
Dist. Osmanabad
07 The Talathi
Dastapur, Tq. Lohara
Dist. Osmanabad Respondents
Mr. S.S. Choudhary, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(92) WRIT PETITION 7576 OF 2018
Jijabhau s/o Madanbhau Mote
Occ. Agri. & business
r/o Mote Galli, Tq. Georai
Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{65}
wp425818.odt
02 Divisional Commissioner
Aurangabad Division
Aurangabad
03 The Collector, Beed
Dist. Beed
04 Sub Divisional Officer
Georai, Tq. Georai
Dist. Beed
05 The Tahsildar
Georai, Tq. Georai
Dist. Beed. Respondents
Mr. G.K. Thigale, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(93) WRIT PETITION NO. 7590 OF 2018
Kishor s/o Kakasaheb Aher
age 30 years, Occ. Agril & Business
R/o Umapur, Tq. Georai
Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai
02 Divisional Commissioner
Aurangabad Division
Aurangabad
03 The Collector, Beed
Dist. Beed
04 Sub Divisional Officer
Georai, Tq. Georai
Dist. Beed
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{66}
wp425818.odt
05 The Tahsildar
Georai, Tq. Georai
Dist. Beed. Respondents
Mr. G.K. Thigale, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(94) WRIT PETITION NO. 7589 OF 2018
Ram s/o Sarjerao Mote
Age 30 years, Occ. Agril & Business
R/o Mote Galli, Tq. Georai
Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai
02 Divisional Commissioner
Aurangabad Division
Aurangabad
03 The Collector, Beed
Dist. Beed
04 Sub Divisional Officer
Georai, Tq. Georai
Dist. Beed
05 The Tahsildar
Georai, Tq. Georai
Dist. Beed. Respondents
Mr. G.K. Thigale, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(95) WRIT PETITION NO. 7588 OF 2018
Shaikh Anis s/o Shaikh Lala
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{67}
wp425818.odt
age 45 years, occ. Agri. & Business
r/o Georai, Tq. Georai
Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai
02 Divisional Commissioner
Aurangabad Division
Aurangabad
03 The Collector, Beed
Dist. Beed
04 Sub Divisional Officer
Georai, Tq. Georai
Dist. Beed
05 The Tahsildar
Georai, Tq. Georai
Dist. Beed. Respondents
Mr. G.K. Thigale, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(96) WRIT PETITION NO. 7587 OF 2018
Rajabhau s/o Gowardhan Pawar
age 43 years, occ. Agril & Business
r/o Georai, Tq. Georai
Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{68}
wp425818.odt
02 Divisional Commissioner
Aurangabad Division
Aurangabad
03 The Collector, Beed
Dist. Beed
04 Sub Divisional Officer
Georai, Tq. Georai
Dist. Beed
05 The Tahsildar
Georai, Tq. Georai
Dist. Beed. Respondents
Mr. G.K. Thigale, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(97) WRIT PETITION NO. 7586 OF 2018
Swapnil s/o Jaggannath Maske
age 28 years, occ. Agri. & Business
r/o Shivaji Nagar Georai,
Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai
02 Divisional Commissioner
Aurangabad Division
Aurangabad
03 The Collector, Beed
Dist. Beed
04 Sub Divisional Officer
Georai, Tq. Georai
Dist. Beed
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 :::
{69}
wp425818.odt
05 The Tahsildar
Georai, Tq. Georai
Dist. Beed. Respondents
Mr. G.K. Thigale, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE AND
A.M.DHAVALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 16th July, 2018
PRONOUNCED ON: 02nd August, 2018.
JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.) :
1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for respective parties.
2 In this group of petitions, petitioners are objecting to the orders passed by the Tahsildar or any other revenue officials directing imposition of penalty for unauthorised transportation or excess quantity of minor mineral or transportation of minor mineral without valid permit or transportation of minor mineral on the basis of invalid and fabricated permit. Apart from this, the orders, directing imposition of penalty in respect of vehicles, is also a matter of challenge.
3 Primary objection of the petitioners, in this petition, is in respect of applicability of Section 48(7) and (8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short "Code of 1966).
4 Relying upon the judgment in the matter of Vijay Dashrath Shirbhate Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2010(1) All M.R. 842, it is contended that since the minor mineral i.e. sand is excavated with lawful authority, provisions of Section ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:42 ::: {70} wp425818.odt 48(7) are not attracted. Petitioners contend that it is not permissible for the Tahsildar or any other revenue official to impose penalty in respect of minor mineral which has been excavated out of an area/plot leased out validly by the State Government. According to the petitioners, they have not excavated unauthorisedly sand from an area forming part of the property vested in the State. Petitioners contend that since the source of minor mineral is an area leased out by the State under the policy framed in that regard, provisions of Code of 1966 would not be attracted and if, at all, the act alleged amounts to contravention of any provision, that would fall within the ambit of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Section 48(1) of the Code of 1966 provides that the right to all minerals at whatever place found, whether on surface or underground, including all derelict or working mines and quarries, old dumps, pits, fields, bandhas, nalas, creeks, river beds and such other places, is and is hereby declared to be expressly reserved and shall vest in the State Government which shall have all powers necessary for the proper enjoyment of such rights. It is, thus, clear that the right to all minerals at whatever place found vests in the State Government. It is for the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 48 to assign to any person its right over any minerals, mines or quarries, and in case for proper enjoyment of such right, it is necessary that all or any of the powers specified in sub-sections (1) and (2) should be exercised, the Collector may, by an order in writing, subject to such conditions as reservations as he may specify, delegate such powers to the person to whom the right has been assigned.
5 Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 48 of the Code of ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:43 ::: {71} wp425818.odt 1966 are relevant for consideration, which are reproduced herein below :
S.48. Government title to mines and minerals :
(7) Any person who without lawful authority extracts, removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes of any mineral from working or derelict mines, quarries, old dumps, fields, bandhas (whether on the plea of repairing or constructions of bund of the fields or an any other plea), nallas, creeks, riverbeds, or such other places wherever situate, the right to which vests in, and has not been assigned by the State Government, shall, without prejudice to any other mode of action that may be taken against him, be liable , [on the order in writing of the Collector, or any revenue officer not below the rank of Tahsildar authorised by the collector in this behalf to pay penalty on of an amount [upto five times] the market value of the minerals so extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up or disposed of, as the case may be :
[* * *] [(8) (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (7), the Collector or any revenue officer not below the rank of Tahsildar authorised by the Collector in this behalf, may seize and confiscate any mineral extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up or disposed of form any mine, quarry or other place referred to in sub- section (7), the right to which vests in, and has not been assigned by the State Government, and may also seize and confiscate any machinery and equipment used for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals and any means of ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:43 ::: {72} wp425818.odt transport deployed to transport the same.
(2) Such machinery or equipment or means of transport, used for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals or transportation thereof, which is seized under sub-section (1), shall be produced before the Collector or such other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector authorised by the Collector in this behalf, within a period of forty-eight hours of such seizure, who may release such seized machinery, equipment or means of transport on payment by the owner thereof of such penalty as may be prescribed and also on furnishing personal bond of an amount not exceeding the market value of the seized machinery, equipment or means of transport shall not be used in future for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals and transportation of the same.
6 Petitioners contend that it is only when any person, without lawful authority, extracts, removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes of any mineral, the State Government is empowered to take action and direct imposition of penalty. Sub- section (8) authorises the Collector or any revenue officer not below the rank of Tahsildar, authorised by the Collector, to seize and confiscate any mineral extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up or disposed of from any mine and any means of transport deployed to transport the same. Sub-section (8)(2) of Section 48 requires that such a machinery or equipment or means of transport which has been seized shall be produced before the Collector or such other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector authorised by the Collector in this behalf, within a period of forty-eight hours of such seizure, who may release such seized ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:43 ::: {73} wp425818.odt machinery, equipment or means of transport on payment by the owner thereof of such penalty as may be prescribed and also on furnishing personal bond of an amount not exceeding the market value of the seized machinery, equipment or means of transport with an undertaking that seized machinery, equipment or means of transport shall not be used in future for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals and transportation of the same.
7 It is contended that sub-sections 8(1) and (2) of Section 48 of the Code of 1966 are referable to sub-section (7) of section
48. It is only when the minor minerals are collected and transported without any lawful authority, the provisions in respect of penalty for the minor minerals or the penalty for vehicle is leviable. Petitioners contend that in all the matters before the Court, the source of extraction of minor mineral is a plot or an area leased out by the State Government and as such, provisions of sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 48 are not at all attracted. It is neither permissible for the revenue officer to impose penalty in respect of minor minerals nor the transporters or owners of the vehicle can be directed to pay penalty in respect of vehicle or to execute a bond and tender an undertaking nor the vehicle can be seized and confiscated by taking recourse to the provisions of Code of 1966.
8 Our attention is drawn to the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short "Act of 1957"). The object of the Act is to provide for the development and regulation of mines and minerals under the control of the Union.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:43 :::{74} wp425818.odt Section 3(a) of the Act of 1957 defines "Minerals", which includes all minerals except mineral oils whereas "minor minerals" has been defined in sub-section (e) to mean building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes and any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette declare to be a minor mineral.
9 Section 14 of the Act of 1957 provides that the provisions of Sections 5 to 13 (inclusive) shall not apply to quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals. Whereas Section 15 provides that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith.
10 The State Government is also invested with the powers to make rules in respect of matters provided under sub-section (1A) (a) of Section 15 of the Act of 1957. Rule making power of the State includes providing for the rules in respect of the person by whom and the manner in which, applications for quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions, may be made and the fees to be paid therefor.
11 The questions as regards the legislative competence of the State to frame rules relating to minor minerals was a matter of consideration before this Court in Hari Constructions Vs. State ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:43 ::: {75} wp425818.odt of Maharashtra and others, 1995(1) M.L.R. 679. The Division Bench of this Court has observed that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 takes over the regulation of mines and development of minerals to the Union to the extent provided. It deals with minor minerals separately from other minerals. The subject of legislation in respect of minor minerals and covered by the Act of 1957, but to a specified extent and to that, extent the powers of State Legislature are wanting. The object of the MLR Code is revenue administration. The object of the said Act is to assess, charge, and collect revenue which includes penalty on account of illegal extraction of minerals vested in the State Government. Under section 48(1) where minerals vest in the State Government, they are entitled to proper enjoyment including the power of sale or disposal of the said minerals and if the said minerals are unauthorisedly removed, then the Collector, under section 48, is required to charge penalty which is in the nature of damages on account of loss suffered by the Government for unauthorised extraction of minerals. Under Section 2(19) of the Code of 1966, "land revenue" means all sums and payments, any cess or rate authorised by the State Government and includes premium, rent or any other payment provided under any act, contract or deed on account of any land. Revenue administration also includes rights of a Collector to impose penalty for unauthorised excavation of minerals which have vested in the Government. The Court has further held that in fact the land revenue is the State subject under List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and there is no merit in the contention that the State Legislature has no competence to enact the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and particularly Section 48(7) of the Code of ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:43 ::: {76} wp425818.odt 1966. The two acts operate in different and distinct spheres and that Section 48(7) of the Code of 1966 is not ultra vires the Constitution.
12 In the matter of Vijay Dashrath Shirbhate (cited supra) the Division Bench of this Court, in paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of the judgment, observed thus :
12 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is dealing with lands and land revenue and under section 20, all lands which are not privately owned, vest in State Government. Under Section 48(1), the right to all minerals wherever found, vests in State Government. Section 48(7) deals with the cases where said right of State Government is violated. The said provision clearly shows that its application depends on the place where any mineral is found and it operates only when such place is not leased or assigned for mining of that mineral by State Government. The provision therefore, clearly show that it gets attracted only when the ownership rights of State Government over such mineral are violated.
The violation of ownership rights is not regulated by the MM Act as it is integral part and parcel of right of revenue administration. It is to be noted recovery contemplated therein is without prejudice to any other liability incurred by wrongdoer because of his illegal act and hence, his liability under section 21 of MM Act is not affected in any manner.
13 The person who excavate with lawful authority is not subjected to said section 48(7). Also for excavation of mineral royalty from a place which has been assigned therefor by the State Government, the said provision is not applicable. It therefore, clearly shows that when such action is in derogation of the ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:43 ::: {77} wp425818.odt ownership rights of State Government over such minerals, the State Government is competent to recover the penalty as stipulated in it. The penalty stipulated is three times the market value of the mineral extracted or Rs.1000/-, if thrice the value of extracted so mineral is less than Rs. One Thousand. It is also to be noticed that action thereunder is without prejudice to any other mode of legal action, that may be taken against him. Thus said provision itself contemplates that any other mode of action, if possible against such wrongdoer, is not affected thereby. It also does not contemplate any prosecution before levying such penalty.
13 It is further recorded in the judgment by the Division Bench that the provisions of Minor Minerals Act clearly show that the action thereunder is for violating the provisions of the said Act i.e. for breach of regulatory measures enacted by the Parliament. Those regulatory measures do not in any way derogate from ownership of either land or minerals of State Government, which are subject matter of or a consideration under Land Revenue Code, particularly Section 48 thereof.
14 It is, thus, clear that in view of Section 48(1) of the Code of 1966, right to all minerals at whatever place those are found vests in the State Government. Any act derogatory to ownership rights of the State over the minor minerals would be a matter falling within the provisions of Code of 1966.
15 Petitioners contend that since the source of minor minerals is an area leased out by the State to the respective contractors, their cases, even assuming that there is violation, do ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:43 ::: {78} wp425818.odt not fall within the ambit of Code of 1966. The contention is devoid of substance for several reasons. The State Government has framed, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 15 of the Act of 1957, rules for regulating minor minerals those are called Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 (for short "Rules of 2013"). Rule 66(11) provides that if any excess quantity over permitted limit is found to be removed the material shall be confiscated and permit holder shall be liable for punishment under the provisions of the Code of 1966 and Act of 1957.
16 Section 328 of the Code of 1966 empowers the State Government to make rules not inconsistent with the provisions of this Code for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Code. Sub-section 328 (2) (xix) authorises to make rules under Sub-section (8) of Section 48 prescribing the penalty to be paid by the owner for release of the machinery, equipment or means of transport used for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals and under Sub-section (9) of Section 48, the rules to regulate the extraction and removal of minor minerals. In exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (9) of Section 48, Sub-section (1) and clause (xix) of Sub-section (2) of Section 328 read with Sub- sections (2) of Section 329 of the Code of 1966, the Governor of Maharashtra has framed rules further to amend Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968. After Rule 8 of the Rules, Rule 9 is added providing for penalty under Sub-section (8) of Section 48 and personal bond. It is provided that the machinery and equipment or means of ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:43 ::: {79} wp425818.odt transport, used for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals or transportation thereof, which is seized under Sub-section (1), shall be produced before the Collector or such other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector authorised by the Collector in this behalf, within a period of forty-eight hours of such seizure, who may release such seized machinery, equipment or means of transport on payment by the owner thereof of such penalty as may be prescribed and also on furnishing personal bond of an amount not exceeding the market value of the seized machinery, equipment or means of transport, stating therein that such seized machinery, equipment or means of transport shall not be used in future for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals and transportation of the same. Under the provisions of Sub-section (8) of Section 48, the machinery and equipment may be released only after payment of penalty as mentioned in the table and after submission of personal bond as stipulated in Section 48(8) of the Code of 1966. the Table provided under the Rules specify the penalty per vehicle/equipment. Sub-rule (2) provides for execution of the personal bond recording the details as specified in the Rules. The petitioners have objected to the imposition of penalty in respect of the vehicle used for transportation of the minor minerals. It is contended that rule framed for imposition of penalty amounts to double jeopardy. It is contended that sub-section (8)(2) makes provision for execution of the bond of an amount not exceeding the market value of the seized machinery, equipment or means of transport as well as tendering of an undertaking to the effect that in future the machinery, equipment or means of transport shall ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:43 ::: {80} wp425818.odt not be used for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up and transportation of the same. It is contended, on the face of such penalty as provided under Sub- section (8)(2) of Section 48, the imposition of penalty in respect of vehicle would not be permissible.
17 On reading Sub-section (8)(1) of Section 48 of the Code, it is noticed that the Collector or any revenue officer, not below the rank of Tahsildar, authorised by the Collector in this behalf, may seize and confiscate any mineral extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up or disposed of from any mine, quarry or other place referred to in Sub-section (7) of Section 48, the right to which vests in, and has not been assigned by the State Government and may also seize and confiscate any machinery and equipment used for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals and any means of transport deployed to transport the same. Sub-section (2) obligates the authority to produce the vehicle before the Collector or such other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector within forty-eight hours, who may release the machinery on payment by the owner, such penalty as may be prescribed and also on executing personal bond specified in Sub-section (2). The penalty in respect of vehicle has not been provided in Section 48(8) (2), but as a precondition for release of the vehicle, a personal bond and undertaking of the owner is required. Whereas, rule 9 provides for penalty in respect of machinery and equipment used for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals and the means of transportation. The imposition of penalty in respect of vehicle and ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:43 ::: {81} wp425818.odt equipment is distinct than the condition imposed in respect of release of seized machinery or vehicle or equipment on production of the same before the Deputy Collector / Sub-Divisional Officer. The condition in respect of execution of a bond as a precondition for release of the vehicle cannot be equated with the imposition of penalty for violation, as provided under Rule 9. It cannot be contended that the rule, that has been framed, is beyond the rule making power of the State Government or that the same is contrary to any substantive provision of law. It is not questioned on the ground of competence of the State. The petitioners, though contend that the rule is unreasonable and as such is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, it has not been substantiated as to how the same can be branded as unreasonable. The rule has been framed directing imposition of penalty for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal and transportation of minor minerals, to deter the violators of law from continuing with the illegal activities. It is noticed that there is rampant illegal activities in excavation, removal, collection, replacement, picking up and disposal and transportation of the sand and taking note thereof the State appears to have amended the rules prescribing for stringent penalty. Merely because the penalties are stringent cannot be a reason to brand it as unreasonable or illegal. The argument advanced by the Counsel appearing for the petitioners objecting to the imposition of penalty for vehicle or equipment or machinery which is within the framework of rules, is unsustainable. The challenge raised to the validity of the rules directing imposition of penalty for vehicle and the machinery used for unauthorised extraction of minor minerals, is devoid of substance and as such deserves to be turned down.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:43 :::{82} wp425818.odt 18 The petitioners contend that since the removal or excavation of sand is authorised i.e. from an area where the sand is excavated has been validly leased to the contractor, the transportation of the said minor mineral from the aforesaid source cannot be said to be violative of provisions of Section 48 of the Code of 1966. It is only when the excavation or transportation of minor minerals is conducted unauthorisedly i.e. within the area which vests in the State Government, same can be branded as unauthorised and the provisions of Code of 1966 can be invoked. The contention raised by the petitioners appears to be devoid of substance.
19 As has been recorded above, in the event of transportation of sand in excess of the quantity over permitted limit is liable for punishment under the provisions of Code of 1966 and Act of 1957 as well as Rule 66(11) of the Rules of 2013.
20 Apart from this, the State Government has framed policy for regulating the excavation and transportation of sand which has been declared under Government Resolution dated 03.01.2018. It is prescribed that the Government Resolution has been issued in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petitions No. 19628-19629 of 2009, decided on 27.02.2012 as well as the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in PILs No. 1/2011, 116/2012, 202/2013, 79/2014 and 82/2014. Clause 11(1)(v) of the Government Resolution dated 03.01.2018 provides that extraction and transportation of sand shall be carried between 6'O clock in the morning till 6'O clock in ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:43 ::: {83} wp425818.odt the evening. The extraction and transportation of sand beyond the aforesaid period shall be considered to be illegal and appropriate action would be taken. Clause 12 of the Government Resolution declares that the extraction of minor minerals in the riverbed shall be done manually and use of machinery like pokland, JCB is prohibited. Clause 13(c) provides that the transporter of minor mineral/sand shall possess a valid pass bearing bar code and if the transporter is found transporting sand without valid pass bearing bar code or if the period provided under the pass has expired, the excavation and transportation of sand would be deemed to be illegal and penal provisions of Section 48(7) and (8) Code of 1966 would be invoked and appropriate action would be taken.
21 The petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Abdul Wasif Abdul Latif Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2017(2) Mh.L.J. 356. In the reported matter, the truck of the petitioner carrying sand was seized by the respondents under Section 48(8) and he was directed to pay penalty for not covering the sand with tarpaulin or any other suitable mechanism. It was contended that provisions of Sections 47 and 48 can be invoked only if a person extracts, removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes of any mineral without lawful authority. It was contended that since the petitioner had not, without lawful authority, done anything for which action could have been initiated against petitioner under Sections 48(7) and (8) of the Code, the order of seizure as well as order imposing penalty is liable to be set aside. The contention was accepted by the Division Bench and it was found that the case of the petitioner ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:43 ::: {84} wp425818.odt therein does not fall within the ambit of Sections 47 and 48 of the Code of 1966. The breach, that was alleged, was not referable to Section 47, or not referable to any of the rules or policy framed under the provisions of Code of 1966. The judgment cited is distinguishable and no parallel can be drawn with the act of the petitioner.
22 In the instant petitions, in certain matters though the transporters possess pass, the transportation of sand is in excess of the permit or in certain cases the period prescribed in the pass has either expired or that the pass itself is deficient in necessary particulars and as such cannot be deemed as valid. The conditions as provided under the Government policy permit transportation of sand between the period prescribed under the policy and with valid pass. If any of the conditions specified in the Government Resolution is breached, the excavation or transportation would be deemed to be illegal and calls for appropriate penalty under the Code of 1966. The petitioners cannot be permitted to contend that since the source of sand or minor minerals is referable to issuance of license or authorisation by the Government in favour of another contractor, the transportation, even if deficient or illegal on account of violation of certain conditions in the Government policy or the rules, shall be considered to be outside the provisions of Code of 1966, is not acceptable.
23 As has been recorded above, the provisions of Code of 1966 provide for revenue administration. The revenue administration, within its fold, brings collection of fees, cess, all ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:43 ::: {85} wp425818.odt types of payments as well as premium, rent or penalties. Since the petitioners are found to have violated the provisions of Rules of 2013 or the policy directions contained in Government Resolution dated 03.01.2018, they are liable to be proceeded with and the provisions of Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 48 of the Code of 1966 can be invoked. Once it is noticed that action at the end of the petitioners is illegal, or the act is without lawful authority, they can be proceeded with under Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 48 of the Code of 1966. Since the violation attributable to the petitioners is branded illegal under the policy framed by the State, they cannot be permitted to contend that provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the Code of 1966 are not attracted and no penalty can be imposed.
24 Another argument, that has been canvassed is of non- observance of principles of natural justice. It is contended that petitioners have not been extended an opportunity of hearing before imposing penalty. In certain matters, as in Writ Petition no. 4258/2018, notice issued by the Tahsildar directing the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty shall not be recovered from him on account of violation of conditions in respect of use of machinery for excavation of sand, is a matter of challenge. It is open for the petitioners to reply the notice and permit the Tahsildar to pass appropriate orders. If, at all, any order is passed by the Tahsildar directing imposition of penalty, the said order is liable to be challenged before superior revenue officer in an appeal by invoking appellate powers under the Code of 1966.
25 It would be open for the petitioners to question the ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:43 ::: {86} wp425818.odt adverse orders passed by the revenue officials directing imposition of penalty. It would also be necessary for the revenue officers to produce the seized or confiscated machinery or vehicle used for illegal transportation or excavation of minor minerals before the Deputy Collector/Sub Divisional Officer within forty-eight hours. If the vehicle or machinery has not been produced, same shall be produced before the Collector or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector authorised by the Collector, in that behalf, within forty-eight hours from the date of this order. On production of the vehicle, the concerned Deputy Collector or any officer shall observe the provisions of Section 48(8) (2) of the Code of 1966 and pass appropriate orders forthwith. The Revenue officers, before directing imposition of penalty other than in respect of minor minerals or for unauthorised use of vehicle for transportation of minor minerals or excavation of the same, are duty bound to extend an opportunity of hearing to the person who has committed violation; and to the transporter of the minor minerals or to the owner of the machinery. The revenue officials are bound to observe principles of natural justice before passing adverse orders against the transporter or owners of the machinery. The adverse orders passed by the revenue officials are liable to be challenged before the appellate forum provided under the Code of 1966 and it would be open for the petitioners or aggrieved parties to raise objection to the order, as permissible in law.
26 For the reasons recorded above, challenge raised to the provisions of Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Mineral) Rule 1968, published in the notification dated 12.01.2018 stands rejected. The petitioners, ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:43 ::: {87} wp425818.odt against whom an order in respect of imposition of penalty for the vehicle is levied, are liable to pay the amount as specified in the order subject to the availability of appellate remedies and the orders, those may be passed by the appellate forum.
27 As has been recorded above, if the vehicles in question have not been produced before the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Deputy Collector within contemplation of Section 48(8)(2) of the Code of 1966, such vehicles or machinery shall be produced within forty-eight hours from the date of this order and the Deputy Collector / Sub-Divisional Officer, on receipt of application by the owner of the vehicle or the machinery, after extending an opportunity of hearing to the concern, shall pass appropriate orders directing release of the vehicle, subject to imposition of penalty and fulfillment of other conditions provided under law, expeditiously and in any case, within a period of three days from the date of the application. Challenge raised to notices/order impugned in the petitions stands rejected.
28 Writ petitions are disposed of. Rule discharged accordingly. No costs.
Pending Civil Applications, if any, do not survive and stand disposed of.
(A.M.DHAVALE) (R.M.BORDE)
JUDGE JUDGE
adb
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 01:47:43 :::