Gitalaxmi 11-WP-10069-2015-J.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10069 OF 2015 1. CHIMAN R. PATEL, age 46, Indian, 2. JIMMY LAXMIDAS BHANUSHALI, age 54, Indian. 3. BHARAT BHIMJI DIWANI, age 50, Indian. 4. GOVIND R. PATEL, age 50, Indian. 5. NANDKISHORE M. BHANDARI, age 58, Indian. All residents of Village Kharade, Taluka Shahapur, Dist.-Thane and members of Joint Venture of M/s. Shahapur Land Developers. ...PETITIONERS Versus 1. TAHASILDAR, Shahapur, Dist.-Thane. 2. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, Bhiwandi (Dist.-Thane). 3. CIRCLE OFFICER, Dolkhamb, Shahaput, Dist.-Thane. 4. TALATHI, Village Tembhurli, Tal.-Shahapur, Dist.-Thane. 31st AUGUST, 2026 Gitalaxmi 11-WP-10069-2015-J.docx 5. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Through Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai). ...RESPONDENTS Mr. Prashant D. Jadhav a/w Ms. Madhusmita Sahoo & Mr. Shrunkhal Pashte, Advocates for the Petitioners. Mr. S. H. Kankal, AGP for the State-Respondent. CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties heard finally. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Tahsildar has passed an order dated 18th March, 2015 under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 imposing penalty for extraction of the minor mineral i.e. the loose soil/earth from the construction site. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has taken me through the panchanama, which notes that there are certain extractions being carried out in the dimensions mentioned in the panchanama. The Tahsildar in his order has observed that the total extraction was of 31st AUGUST, 2026 Gitalaxmi 11-WP-10069-2015-J.docx 5651.47 brass, i.e. loose soil/earth and that the Petitioner had permission of 1700 brass soil extraction. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Promoters and Builders Association of Pune v/s. State of Maharashtra and Others1, the loose soil/earth is not a minor mineral unless it is removed and utilized for the purposes mentioned in the notification issued under Section 3(e) i.e. for the purpose of route laying, roads, embankments, railways, buildings to be a minor minerals in addition to the minerals already declared as minor minerals. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 11 of the said judgment has held that, “11. What is a mineral is not defined either under the MRTP Act or the Code. The said expression is however defined by section 2(j) of the Mines Act, 1952 and section 3(a) read with section 3(e) of the Act of 1957. As mining activities and operations are regulated by the provisions of the Act of 1957, it is the definition contained in the said Act, which will be more relevant for the present. Section 3(a) and Section 3(e) is in the following terms : “Section 3.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) “minerals” includes all minerals except mineral oils: (b) xxxxx xxxx xxxxx (c) xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 1 2015(1) Bom.C.R. 26. 31st AUGUST, 2026 Gitalaxmi 11-WP-10069-2015-J.docx (e) “minor minerals” means 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. [(ea) “notified minerals” means any mineral specified in the Fourth Schedule;]” 5. Learned counsel submits that extraction is a natural part of the construction activities and that the earth extracted is re-levelled back into the same site from which it is extracted. Only maximum of 1700 brass are removed from the extracted site. All other earth is re- fixed, utilized and levelled on the same site. Learned counsel submits that he is not even bound to pay royalty on 1700 brass soil, as it is not utilized for the purposes mentioned in the notification. However, they have paid the same. Learned counsel submits that the penalty imposed for extraction of 3951.47 brass soil is illegal, as there is no removal of the earth from the site for utilization of the purposes mentioned in the notification. 6. The order passed by the Tahsildar does not indicate that the earth is removed from the extracted site. Panchanama does mention that there has been levelling on the site. Unless there is extracted soil utilised for the purposes mentioned in the notification, no royalty can be imposed. 31st AUGUST, 2026 Gitalaxmi 11-WP-10069-2015-J.docx 7. Considering the same, the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar is quashed and set aside. The amount deposited by the Petitioner with the Tahsildar pursuant to the directions of this Court, to be returned back along with the accrued interest @ 6% per annum to the Petitioner. 8. Writ Petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. 9. Rule made absolute in the above terms. [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ] 31st AUGUST, 2026 GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Digitally signed by GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2026.09.05 13:36:15 +0530