1 918wp5816.2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5816 OF 2026 (Pravin s/o Govindrao Shende and anr Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors) __________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders __________________________________________________________________________________________ Mr. M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. C.M. Samarth, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4&5/State. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR & RAJNISH R. VYAS,JJ. DATE : 24/09/2026 The petitioner No. 1 is partner of petitioner No. 2 partnership firm, who has challenged the notice dated 24.12.2018, issued by Tahsildar, Gondia, so also, notice dated 8.1.2019, issued by Additional Tahsildar, Gondia. 2. By way of aforesaid notices, Tahsildar, Gondia had called upon the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 70,17,414/-, within seven days. It was also stated that failure to deposit the said amount further additional penalty, in view of the provisions of Section 174 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, would be imposed. The said amount was called upon to be recovered from the petitioner as the Regional Manager, Tribal Development Corporation, Bhandara had issued a communication to the Collector, Gondia, for recovery of such amount. According to the Tribal Development Department the charges were to be recovered from the petitioner. 3. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties and gone through the case record. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue involved in the petition is no more res integra since in Writ Belkhede 2026:BHC-NAG:12740-DB 2 918wp5816.2026.doc Petition No. 5042//2024, decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 24.2.2026, it has been categorically held that there cannot be initiation of any recovery proceedings under Rule 17 of the Maharashtra Realization of Land Revenue Rules, 1967, unless pre-conditions therein are fulfilled. The aforesaid rule would clarify that there has to be a recovery certificate for initiation of proceedings, at the instance of Tahsildar. 5. Mr. Samarth, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. Maharahstra State Cooperative Tribal Development Corporation when questioned, has stated that there is no recovery certificate issued against the petitioner. Thus, the controversy in the petition boils down to the issue as to whether in absence of recovery certificate, Tahsildar can initiate the proceedings of recovery. 6. Paragraph No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 5042/2024, decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 24.2.2026 is worth noting: “3. For this purpose, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment of the Single Bench of this Court to which one of us was party (Anil S. Kilor, J.) in Writ Petition No.3695 of 2019, wherein it is held thus : “8. As far as the demand notices are concerned, i.e. dated 19.09.2018 and 20.11.2018, it is an admitted fact that there is no adjudication or determination of the amount alleged to have defaulted by the petitioner. Such demand notices were issued by the Tahsildar under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1967. Rule 17 of the Rules of 1967 reads thus: “17. Procedure for recovering sums recoverable as and arrear of land revenue :- (1) Where any sum due to any department of Government or a local authority or a co operative society is recoverable as an arrear of land revenue from any defaulter, such department, local authority or, as the case may be, co-operative society may send a requisition in writing for recovering the sum to the Belkhede 3 918wp5816.2026.doc Tahsildar of the taluka in which the defaulter resides or has property. (2) Such requisition shall contain the following particulars, namely (a) Full name and address of the defaulter: (b) The sum to be recovered: (c) The provisions of law under which the sum is recoverable as an arrear of land revenue: (d) The process by which the sum may be recovered: (e) The property against which the process may be executed. (3) On receipt of such requisition, the Tahsildar shall dispose it of in accordance with the provision of the Code and these rules.” 9. From the language of Rule 17 of the Rules of 1967, it says that where any sum due to any department of Government or a local authority or a co-operative society is recoverable as an arrear of land revenue from any defaulter, in that case this will come into play on the request of the Co-operative Society or as the case may be. 10. In the present matter, there is no order directing the petitioner to pay the said amount and on failure of the petitioner to pay the said amount, it shall be recovered from the petitioner as land revenue. 11. So in absence of any such order, Rule 17 of the Rules of 1967 will also not come into play and therefore, the action taken by the Tahsildar in issuing demand notices under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1967 or the order of attachment of property under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1967, are without jurisdiction and without following the due procedure. Accordingly, the demand notices as well as the order of attachment of immovable property, are hereby quashed and set aside.” As it is not disputed that recovery certificate was not issued against the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the notices impugned cannot stand scrutiny of law. Hence, following order is passed: Belkhede 4 918wp5816.2026.doc O R D E R i) The petition is partly allowed. ii) The notice issued by Tahsildar, Gondia in Revenue Case No. RRC-71/2018-19 DATED 24.12.2018 At Annexure 42 and notice bearing no. 10/RRC-71/2018-19, dated 8.1.2019 at Annexure 44, issued by Additional Tahsildar, Gondia to the petitioner are quashed and set aside as well as the consequential order of attachment. The endorsement of attachment recorded in Revenue record is directed to be deleted expeditiously. ii) The respondents are at liberty to initiate recovery proceedings, as permissible under law, after following the due procedure. iii) In case, such proceedings are initiated, the petitioner may raise objection to it, if so desires. 7. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) Belkhede Signed by: Mr. R. S. Belkhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 28/09/2026 10:29:54