1 wp467.23.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.467 OF 2023 Bartakulla Khan S/o Samiullah Khan Aged 51 years, Occ: Self employed, R/o Bada Pura, Babhli, Daryapur, Dist. Amravati. ....PETITIONER ...V E R S U S... 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Additional Collector, Collector Office, Akola. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, SDO Office, Dist. Akola. 4. Tahsildar Akola, Tahsil Office, Akola, Dist. Akola ...RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri K.A. Kothari, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.B. Bissa, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATE : - 18.03.2026 ORAL JUDGMENT: . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The petition challenges the order dated 04.08.2022 passed by respondent no.3 – the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akola 2026:BHC-NAG:4769 2 wp467.23.odt wherein the order dated 18.05.2022 passed by respondent no.4 – the Tahsildar, Akola was upheld. Thereafter, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was also upheld in appeal before the respondent no.2 – the Additional Collector, Akola vide order dated 22.11.2022, which is also under challenge in this petition. 3. The issue at the hand is that the Tahsildar passed an order on 18.05.2022 after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and thereby imposed penalty under Section 48(7) and 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revnue Code, 1966 (for short, “the Code”) for the alleged illegal transportation of minor mineral – crusher sand by the petitioner and for releasing his vehicle (Tractor) bearing registration No.MH37F982. 4. Though, various grounds have been raised in the petition while challenging the impugned order; however, the only ground pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the argument is that the Tahsildar has no power to impose penalty under Section 48(8)(2) of the Code. 5. I have gone through Section 48(8)(2) of the Code which reads as under: “48(8) (2) Such machinery or equipment or means of transport, used for unauthorized extraction, removal, 3 wp467.23.odt 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 or 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.” Bare perusal of Section 48(8)(2) of the Code reveals that, either the Collector or any other person authorized by the Collector not below the rank of a Deputy Collector may impose penalty for releasing the vehicle used for illegal transportation of sand. 6. Therefore, I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the penalty of 1,00,000/- imposed ₹ by the Tahsildar for releasing the vehicle is without jurisdiction as the Tahsildar is an authority lower in rank than a Deputy Collector 4 wp467.23.odt and therefore, the impugned order requires to be set aside and the petition deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order : i) The writ petition is partly allowed. ii) The order dated 18.05.2022 passed by respondent no.4 – Tahsildar, Akola; consequently the order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akola and the order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the Additional Collector, Akola to the extent of imposing penalty of 1 lakh for release of the vehicle of the ₹ petitioner is set aside. The rest of the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar, Akola will remain unaffected by this order. iii) If the petitioner has deposited entire amount of penalty under the dictum of this Court for grant of interim relief, the Tahsildar, Akola is directed to refund the balance amount to the petitioner after deducting the penalty amount of 22,100/- for ₹ transporting sand illegally. Rule accordingly. (M.W. Chandwani) Wagh