Judgment WP-2335-2021 J..odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2335 OF 2021 PETITIONERS 1. Chandrabhan Madhukar Bhandak, Aged about 40 Years, Occ. Business, 2. Rajendra Bhaiyaji Upase, Aged about 42 Years, Occ. Business, 3. Ganesh S/o Ashok Balki, Aged about 35 Years, Occ. Driver, 4. Suresh S/o Yashwant Raut, Aged about 40 Years, Occ. Business, 5. Jitendra S/o Ramuji Bhede, Aged about 35 Years, Occ. Driver, 6. Waman Madhukar Bhandak, Aged about 50 Years, Occ. Business, 7. Purshottam S/o Mahadeo Dhande, Aged about 57 Years, Occ. Agriculturist, All R/o Beena, (Sangam) Kamptee, District- Nagpur ... VERSUS… RESPONDENTS 1. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, De- partment of Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Tahsildar, Kamptee, Dist Nagpur 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mauda, Dist.Nagpur. Pvf 2026:BHC-NAG:12011 Judgment WP-2335-2021 J..odt 2 4. Vandana Sawargapate, Aged about Major, Occ. Business, R/o Sub-Divisional Office, Mauda, Dist.Nagpur. 5. Arvind Hinge, Aged about Major, Occ. Business, R/o Tahsildar office, Kamptee, Dist Nagpur. 6. Chandrakant Madne, Police Station, Kaparkheda, Dist. Nagpur. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar a/b. Mr. G. Singh, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. N.S. Autkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL , J . DATE : 04/09/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties. With consent of both of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. In the present petition, challenge is to the orders dated 06.06.2019 and 07.06.2019, passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the matter. 3. In the present petition, the case of the petitioner is that they are running a transport business and for that purpose, the petitioner own and possess vehicles. All the vehicles which are owned by them are commercial vehicles and are used only for the transportation of soil. 4. On 04.06.2019, the vehicles of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were caught while they were carrying the sandfly from the agricultural farm Pvf Judgment WP-2335-2021 J..odt 3 of one Shri Purshottam Dhande. Accordingly, a crime was registered against them vide Crime No.380 of 2019, at Police Station Khaparkheda. After the registration of the offence, respondent No.2 passed the order dated 06.06.2019, whereby, a fine in the tune of Rs.29,86,200/- was imposed on the petitioners for illegal excavation. He has forwarded the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer, to take action under Section 48(8) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short “the MLR Code”). The learned Sub-divisional Officer, immediately on the next date i.e. 07.06.2019, passed an order imposing a fine of Rs.11,50,000/- against the petitioners. 5. This Court found that order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, was without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Therefore, respondent Nos.2 and 3 was directed to file an affidavit as to how and in what manner within one day matter was forwarded to the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, and how on same day the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, passed the order in the matter. In pursuance of same, the learned Tahsildar, Kamptee, has filed an affidavit stating that he could not trace out, in his office record, the proposal which was submitted by his office to the learned Sub-Divisional Officer. In the circumstances, it is not clear on what basis Pvf Judgment WP-2335-2021 J..odt 4 the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, passed the impugned order dated 07.06.2019. 6. The learned AGP in the background of above factual position instead of clarifying as how the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, is justified in passing the order dated 07.06.2019 raised objection of tenability of petition as statutory remedy is available to petitioner to redress his grievance. In support of her submission, she has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench at Aurangabad, in the case of Prakash Tumdu Chaudhari & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2023 (2) ALL MR 45, whereby, it is held that under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, there is a mechanism provided under which the petitioners can file statutory appeal and same can be decided by the authorities by exercising their powers and decide the entire issues. Hence, in short, it is the submission of learned AGP that if an alternative and efficacious remedy is available, then, in such cases, it is not proper to exercise its extraordinary powers by this Court in the matter. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that this Court can always exercise its powers, if there is patent illegality in the matter. According to him, in the present case, the affidavit of Pvf Judgment WP-2335-2021 J..odt 5 learned Tahsildar, it is clear that there is a patent illegality in the matter. This Court, can exercise its extraordinary powers in the matter and along with the order of learned Sub-Divisional Officer, the order passed by the learned Tahsildar, can also be set aside in the matter. He has pointed out that this Court in Writ Petition No.8424 of 2018 Gufran Khan Rahmatullah Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Superintendent of Police, Akola and Others decided on 13.03.2019, has held that if the Police Authorities have seized the minerals, such seizure at the instance of the Police Authorities, is illegal and on that basis, no action under Section 48 of the MLR Code, can be initiated in the matter. 8. According to petitioner, admittedly in the present matter, action of seizure at the instance of Police Officers by preparing a false panchanama hence, the entire action is vitiated and, therefore, according to him, this Court can exercise its powers in the matter. 9. In the light of the submissions of both the parties, the petitioner is correct to state that if there is a patent illegality in the matter, this Court in exceptional circumstances can exercise extraordinary powers. But if an alternative statutory forum is available, then it is always proper that this Court should be slow and conscious while exercising the extraordinary power, such powers can be exercise Pvf Judgment WP-2335-2021 J..odt 6 looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, ordinarily the Court is justified to refer the parties to avail statutory remedy. So also, applying the principal of stare-decisis as the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Prakash Chaudhari’s case (supra) by interpreting Section 48 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1956, has held that an aggrieved person can file an appeal under Section 247 of the MLR Code, as a statutory provision is made available to the person. 10. In the present case, as the statutory forum is available to the petitioner, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. In the present case, however, as the learned Tahsildar, has filed an affidavit stating that as he could not trace out the details of the proposal from his own office, as per his order dated 06.06.2019, it is clear that the order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, is by exceeding the jurisdiction and without granting hearing opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, to that extent in my opinion, this Court can interfere in the matter. Accordingly the following order is passed :- O R D E R (i) The Writ Petition No.2335/2021 is partly allowed. (ii) In respect of the order dated 06.06.2019 passed by the learned Tashildar, Kamptee, in Revenue Case No.26/MNL-37/2018-19, the petitioners are permitted to Pvf Judgment WP-2335-2021 J..odt 7 file a statutory appeal as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. (iii) The order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Mouda, dated 07.06.2019 in Revenue Case No.36/MNL-37/2018-19, is hereby quashed and set aside. (iv) The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mouda, is directed to decide the case within a period of 45 days from the date of appearance of parties before him. (v) Parties are directed to appear before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Mouda, on 22.09.2026. 11. In view of disposal of the petition, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) deposited with the Registry of this Court, as per order dated 04.07.2019, passed by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (PRAVIN S. PATIL , J . ) 𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁 Pvf