1 911 to 921.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 911 WRIT PETITION NO. 12710 OF 2026 DEEPJYOTI ASSOCIATE THR AUTHORIZED PERSON DEEPAK S KHALDE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao AGP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Preeti Diggikar … AND 912 WRIT PETITION NO. 12711 OF 2026 SANDIP RAMESH PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao Addl.GP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Dr. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar … AND 913 WRIT PETITION NO. 12712 OF 2026 ADHAR RATANSING GIRASE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao AGP for Respondent/s – State : Mr. K.S. Patil … AND 914 WRIT PETITION NO. 12713 OF 2026 KAILAS ASHOK DHOMSE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS 2 911 to 921.odt ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao AGP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Vaishali Chaudhari … AND 915 WRIT PETITION NO. 12714 OF 2026 AABA DHARMA SHELAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao AGP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Deepali Jape … AND 916 WRIT PETITION NO. 12715 OF 2026 R SQUARE INFRA THR ITS PROPRIETOR RAVI RAMESH PATEL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao AGP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Preeti Diggikar … AND 917 WRIT PETITION NO. 12716 OF 2026 PRADIP PRAKASHSING PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao Addl.GP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Dr. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar … AND 918 WRIT PETITION NO. 12717 OF 2026 RUSHIKESH BHATA MAHAJAN 3 911 to 921.odt VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao AGP for Respondent/s – State : Mr. K.S. Patil … AND 919 WRIT PETITION NO. 12718 OF 2026 VISHALSING DEVENDRASING SERAGI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao AGP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Vaishali Chaudhari … AND 920 WRIT PETITION NO. 12719 OF 2026 MAHENDRA RAJENDRA PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao AGP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Deepali Jape … AND 921 WRIT PETITION NO. 12720 OF 2026 KALPESH DNYANESHWAR PATIL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ORS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao AGP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Preeti Diggikar … CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026 4 911 to 921.odt PER COURT : 1. In all these Writ Petitions listed before this Court the vehicles / machinery of the respective Petitioners have been seized by the Circle Officer / Tahsildar in the respective matters. Following are the details of vehicles / machinery and penalty imposed on them : Petition no. Vehicles/Machine no. Penalty W.P. No. 12710/2026 N601D00896 7,50,000/- W.P. No. 12712/2026 N603D02552 7,50,000/- W.P. No. 12713/2026 HYNDN633KE0070387 7,50,000/- W.P. No. 12714/2026 THEDCOLOPO0000241 7,50,000/- W.P. No. 12717/2026 S20022823 7,50,000/- W.P. No. 12718/2026 S21040216 7,50,000/- W.P. No. 12719/2026 N635D02139 7,50,000/- W.P. No. 12715/2026 N640D00231 7,50,000/- W.P. No. 12716/2026 N601D05010 7,50,000/- W.P. No. 12720/2026 N601D04037 7,50,000/- W.P. No. 12711/2026 MH-48-AG-5022 2,00,000/- 2. After conducting the panchnama, a report has been forwarded by the Tahsildar to the Sub-Divisional Officer. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioners as to why the penalty under Section 48 (8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, should not be imposed upon them. An order imposing penalty was subsequently passed by the Tahsildar, Amalner, in the respective matters, which was subject matter of challenge before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon. 5 911 to 921.odt The Sub-Divisional Officer, thereafter, passed an order imposing penalty of Rs. 7,50,000/- on the Petitioners. 3. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that in all these matters, the remedy of filing Appeal is available to the Petitioners and he proposes to approach the Collector by invoking the statutory remedy of Appeal. The only relief he is seeking in the present Writ Petitions is a direction to the Appellate Authority to release the vehicles / machinery of the respective Petitioners on depositing of the 25% of the penalty assessed in the impugned order by the Appellate Authority by imposing appropriate conditions during the pendency of the Appeal before the Appellate Authority. He relies on the various orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition nos. 8413/2026, 13060/2023 and 398/2026, wherein a similar relief has been granted in favour of the Petitioners in the Writ Petition. 4. The respective government Advocates appearing in the Writ Petitions, have opposed the prayer of the Petitioners on the ground that it is prerogative of the Appellate Authority to grant interim relief to the Petitioners during the pendency of the Appeal. Considering that there is a substantive statutory remedy available to the Petitioners, the present Writ Petitions are not maintainable. The availability of alternate statutory 6 911 to 921.odt remedy is not disputed. However, considering the fact that the vehicles after seizure, have remained in the custody of the Revenue Authorities for more than two to three months, the continued detention of vehicles/ machinery is not only causing financial loss to the Petitioners but is also results in the damage to vehicles / machinery in a stand still condition. 5. In view thereof, since the Petitioners are not claiming that the Writ Petitions should be entertained by setting aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Commissioner, in my opinion, it would suffice to issue directions to the Appellate Authority to decide the Appeals that would be filed by the Petitioners against the orders passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer and in case, if an Application is accompanied along with such Appeal, order to release the vehicles / machinery forthwith shall be passed upon depositing of 25% of the amount, by imposing conditions like undertaking of redepositing the vehicles in case if any adverse orders is passed in Appeals. If such Appeals are filed by the Petitioners, the aforementioned orders shall be passed by the Appellate Authority subject to the outcome of the Appeal. 6. After the passing of the order of deposit of 25% of the amount, the vehicles and the machinery shall be release forthwith. 7 911 to 921.odt 7. With the aforementioned directions, the Writ Petitions shall stand disposed of. ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ) SPC