1 wp8347.2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 61 WRIT PETITION NO. 8347 OF 2015 DATTATRAYA TIKARAM DALVI VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, AURANGABAD AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Amit A. Mukhedkar AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. R. D. Raut ... CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 15.09.2025 PER COURT: 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Tahasildar, Loha dated 08.12.2011, so also, the order passed bythe appellate authority / Sub-Divisional Officer dated 14.05.2012 under the provisions of Sections 48(3) and Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 holding that the petitioner has excavated 300 brass more than what was permitted. It is alleged that the petitioner was permitted to excavate 1000 brass of minor mineral i.e. murum, however on complaints and on varification it is observed that the petitioner has exacavated 1300 brass of murun. It is also stated that the panchanama was conducted in presence of panchas on 01.12.2011 and it was found 2025:BHC-AUG:24878 2 wp8347.2015 that 1300 brass of murun was excavated and accordingly penalty was imposed for payment of royalty for excess murun, so also, for illegal excavation. The order is also upheld by the appellate authority. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has raised ground before the appellate authority that no notice of hearing was given to him before imposing the penalty and the proceedings before the Tahasildar were conducted in his absence and the impugned order dated 08.12.2011 is passed by the Tahsildar without his presence. He submits that there was no occasion for him to make representation to give his reply to the panchanama prepared or put up all his evidence before the Tahsildar. This particular grounds although put up was not answered by the appellate authority. 4. The learned counsel has pointed out that in the order of appellate authority the observation is only as regards the panchanama prepared and in terms of the panchanama murum excavation is of 1300 brass. However, there is no observation as regards, whether the applicant was heard in the matter by the Tahsildar before passing the impugned order or that the material was given to him on the basis of which the impugned order is passed. 3 wp8347.2015 5. The affidavit filed by the respondent authority, wherein it is observed that the opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner in paragraph no.5 it is observed. However, from the impugned dated 08.12.2011, it is not seen that the petitioner was heard in the matter. 6. Considering this aspect of the matter that the petitioner was not represented before the Tahsildar and was not able to defend the proceedings before the Tahsildar as the documents relied upon by the Tahsildar were not given / served on the petitioner. This court would be inclined to set aside both the impugned orders and remit the matter to the Tahsildar to re- adjudicate the matter. 7. The impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar, Loha to decide the proceedings in accordance with law. The petitioner shall appear before the Tahsildar, Loha on 29.09.2025, at 02:30 p.m. Thereafter, the Tahsildar may give further dates in the matter. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] marathe