1 902-WP-10440-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 902 WRIT PETITION NO. 10440 OF 2026 Suleman Shaha Jalam Shaha VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary And Others ... Mr.Deshmukh Bhausaheb Sadashivrao for the Petitioner. Ms. Preeti Diggikar, AGP for the Respondent/State. ... CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 04.09.2026 PER COURT : 1. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kannad (‘SDO’) dated 10th August, 2026, imposing penalty of Rs.7,50,000/- in exercise of his powers under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (the ‘Said Code, 1966’). It is the case of the Petitioner that his vehicle that is a JCB bearing registration no.MH-17-BV-4625 was engaged in excavating silt and soil in view of the contract given to one N.K. Constructions for excavating silt from the lake situated in Khultabad. According to him, the JCB was standing in idle condition near by the lake. During such time, Respondent No.3 visited the spot and has drawn a false Panchanama behind the back of the Petitioner, alleging that the JCB was engaged in excavating silt and soil on 16th July, 2026. Respondent No.3 without taking into consideration the circumstances and relying on the Panchanama drawn by the Circle Officer, forwarded a proposal to Respondent No.2 on 16th July, 2026. Sunny Thote 2026:BHC-AUG:41027 2 902-WP-10440-2026.odt Relying on the said report of Respondent No.3, Respondent No.2 has issued a show-cause notice to the Petitioner on 30th June, 2026, as to why penalty under Section 48(7)(8) of the Said Code, 1966, should not be imposed upon him to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- for illegal excavatino of silt and soil, from the lake at Khultabad. The show cause was issued calling upon the Petitioner to reply within 24 hours. 2. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr.Deshmukh, submits that in fact on receiving such notice, he has approached the Authority and brought to their notice that there is no such illegal transportation. In fact he was excavating the silt and soil from the said lake upon being engaged by N.K. Constructions who were awarded contract by the Municipal Council Khultabad. The time during which it was seized, the JCB was standing in idle condition. Inspite of that the Authorities have not taken into consideration the explanation given by the Petitioner and has passed the impugned order on 10th August, 2026. 3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner raises an objection to the impugned order on the ground that, the Panchanama does not disclose signatures of any Panchas, therefore, it is not reliable them. The other objection raised by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner is about the failure of Respondent No.3, to produce the vehicle before Respondent No.2 within 48 hours as contemplated under Section 48(8)(2) of the Said Code, 1966. According to him, based on the report dated 16th July, 2026, sent by Respondent No.3, Respondent No.2 has acted without actually Sunny Thote 3 902-WP-10440-2026.odt verifying the vehicle, which is necessary as per Section 48(8)(2) of the Said Code, 1966 and has issued a notice more than 15 days after seizing the vehicle. Due to all these procedural defects by the Revenue Authorites, the impugned order is vitiated hence, the vehicle deserves to be released by quashing and setting aside the order dated 10th August, 2026. 4. In support of his submissions, he relies on the orders passed by this court in Writ Petition No.1273 of 2018 dated 6th February, 2018 in the case of (Dipak Logistics and Forwarders Kharghar Navi Mumbai & Anr. V/s. State of Maharashtra and other) and Writ Petition No. 8915 of 2024 dated 30th August, 2024 (Shahaji Uttam Rakibe V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.). It is also contended that failure to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 48(7)(8) of the said Code of 1966 vitiates the entire proceedings, and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per-contra, the learned AGP appearing for the State Authorities submits that her first and foremost objection is to the alternate remedy which is available to the Petitioner, inspite of which he has filed present Writ Petition on this ground alone, the present Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. She would further contend that, the Panchanama itself discloses that the JCB was not standing idle, but was engaged in excavating the silt, which is not permissible beyond 6:00 p.m. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the Petitioner that it Sunny Thote 4 902-WP-10440-2026.odt was standing in idle condition and not cause of action has arisen for taking any actions. According to her, the Tahsildar had rightly submitted the report within 24 hours. The vehicle was seized on 16th July, 2026, and the Tahsildar had immediately forwarded the report on the same day. Hence, there is no substance in the contention of the Petitioner that the report was not submitted within 48 hours. 6. I have heard the respective parties and perused the record produced by the learned Advocate, with their assistance. Upon perusal of the Panchanama dated 16th July, 2026, it appears that none of the Panchas has affixed his signature on it. In fact, the Panchanama records that the Panchas have refused to affix their signatures thereon. Thus, such Panchanama, which does not bear the signatures of the Panchas, cannot be taken into consideration and it loses its evidentiary significance. Similarly, the notice is issued by the SDO on 30th July, 2026, calling upon the Petitioner to show cause, why the penalty of Rs.7,50,000/- should not be imposed. A gap in the date of Panchanama as well as the issuance of notice itself indicate that, vehicle has not been produced by Respondent No.3 before Respondent No.2 within 48 hours as contemplated under Section 48(8)(2) of the Said Code, 1966. Therefore, the procedure undertaken by the Authority vitiates the order impugned. 7. As pointed out by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner in case of Dipak Logistics and Forwarders Kharghar Navi Mumbai & Anr. Sunny Thote 5 902-WP-10440-2026.odt (Supra), it has been categorically held by this Court that “it is mandatory for Revenue Officials to produce the attached vehicles before the Collector within a period of 48 hours. This seizure of vehicles without verifying whether the act alleged is an offence or violation of any regulations and failing to produce the vehicle before the Competent Authority to facilitate its release causes great prejudice and also financial loss to the owner. Apart from the harassment caused on account of illegal actions of the Revenue Officials in seizing the vehicles and goods, there is failure to observe the provisions of Section 48(8)(2) of the Said Code, 1966”. In fact in this order the Court having noticed the illegalities of the Revenue Authorites has imposed cost of Rs.10,000/- for failure to follow the mandate of Section 48(8)(2) of the Said Code, 1966. 8. Similarly, in case of Shahaji Uttam Rakibe (Supra), also same view is taken by this Court. Thus, there is no doubt from the documents placed on record that the vehicle of the Petitioner that is JCB has not been produced before the Competent Authority, i.e., the SDO, Respondent No.2 within 48 hours as contemplated under Section 48(8)(2) of the Said Code, 1966. 9. In view of the failure to follow the procedure, the order dated 10th August, 2026, imposing penalty on the Petitioner is quashed and set aside and the Authorities are directed to release the vehicle of the Petitioner, forthwith. Sunny Thote 6 902-WP-10440-2026.odt 10. With the aforementioned directions, this Writ Petition is disposed off. [ MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ] Sunny Thote