1 973wp9462.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 973 WRIT PETITION NO. 9462 OF 2026 MAYUR SANJAY ADHAV AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Kale Utkarsh Dnyaneshwar AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5/State : Ms. Deepali S. Jape ... CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 23.09.2026. PER COURT : 1. The petitioner is challenging the orders dated 02.07.2025 and 17.07.2025, passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for illegal steps taken by respondent No. 4 against the petitioner and to release the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. Dumper bearing No. MH-12-FZ-5355, taken into custody by the respondent authorities. The afore mentioned Dumper was taken into custody vide panchanama dated 23.04.2025. 2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that by the same panchanama a JCB machine as well as Dumber were seized. In Writ Petition No. 4231 of 2026 this Court vide order dated 06.09.2026 has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, directing to release the JCB Machine on the ground that without following the procedure as contemplated under Section 48 (a) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the JCB machine has been seized by the authorities. Therefore, 2 973wp9462.26.odt the dumper which is also seized vide the same panchanama dated 23.04.2025 was also to be released in favour of the petitioner. 3. I have seen the order and the panchanama placed on record by the petitioner, as well as the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4231 of 2026 undisputedly, the following observations are made by this Court are as below : “7. The aforesaid scheme of the Code nowhere stipulates that Tahsildar has power to seize vehicle or equipment or impose penalty for the same. Sub-clause (2) of sub-section (8) of Section 48 clearly stipulates that power to impose penalty vests with Collector or Sub- Divisional Officer on presentation of seized vehicle before him within 48 hours. The aforesaid legal position has been reiterated by this Court in case of Shahaji Uttam Rakibe Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others (Writ Petition No.8915 of 2024), Damodar Nivrutti Parge Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others (Writ Petition No.1441 of 2024) and Deepak Logistics and Forwarders and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others (Writ Petition No. 1273 of 2018). 8. In present case, it is discernible that action of seizure of vehicle is taken by respondent nos.4 and 5. The respondent no. 4 without authority under law, issued show cause notice and imposed penalty under section 48(8) ignoring requirements of sub-clause (2) of sub- section (8) of Section 48. The vehicle was seized and kept in police station. It was never produced before Sub Divisional Officer for further action. The respondent no.4 illegally assumed power of Deputy Collector, issued show cause notice and passed order imposing penalty of Rs.7,50,000/-. The petitioner's vehicle is illegally detained since 23.04.2025 under pretext of use for illegal extraction of minor minerals and further order dated 02.07.2025 imposing penalty passed by respondent no.4/Tahsildar. 9. In result, this Court holds that writ petition 3 973wp9462.26.odt deserves to 9. be allowed and same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and (C).” 4. This Court has held that the seizure of the vehicle was done without following the procedure as prescribed under Section 48 (a) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, therefore, the Writ Petition stands allowed. 5. On the aforementioned background, I do not see why different view should be taken by this Court. 6. In the result the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clauses (B, C and D). ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ) mahajansb/