Gughane Infrastructure Private Ltd. vs The Additional Collector, Yavatmal District - Yavatmal & Ors.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The present petition challenges order dated 1^st April 2022, passed by the Tahsildar, Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal, which is being confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 5^th February 2024 and also by the Deputy Collector vide order dated 9^th September 2024.

I have heard Mr. A.R. Ingole, learned counsel for the petitioner.

He would draw my attention to the fact that he has a valid license for excavation of 500 brass of murum. In spite of the said fact, it was found by the Tahsildar that some excess excavation is done and therefore a notice was issued. In the proceedings which ensued, the Tahsildar passed an order on 1^st April 2022 relying on the panchnama done and the statements of land owner who had made a complaint that the murum in question has been excavated from her land.

Thus, the Tahsildar imposed an amount of Rs.15,63,415/- as a penalty. The said order has been confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as also the Deputy Collector.

Mr. Ingole, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the three orders are unsustainable in law, since the material which was against him or was sought to be used against him was never put to him, nor he was granted an opportunity to confront with the said material and/or to cross-examine the persons who have made complaint against him. He would therefore submit that the orders are unsustainable in law.

Per contra, Mrs. M.S. Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would seriously counter the said submissions. She would submit that there are concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner and which are not shown to be perverse in any manner whatsoever. She would also submit that the concerned land owner has made a complaint to the Tahsildar and on the basis of which the enquiry ensued and the orders impugned are passed.

Having considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties, it is more than apparent that the only reason which has weighed with the Tahsildar in non-suiting the petitioner and imposing the penalty is a complaint of the concerned landlady. She had alleged in the said complaint that there was an illegal excavation of certain amount of murum from the agricultural land. It can be seen from the said matter that no opportunity of cross-examining and/or confronting with the said material was given to the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, all the orders suffer from breach of principles of natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that if a judicial or a quasi-judicial authority is pressing into service certain material on record, the party who is going to be adversely affected by it will have to be granted an opportunity to confront and/or to cross-examine the said persons or party. Such an exercise doesn't seem to be done in the present case. All the orders therefore are unsustainable in law, being contrary to the said settled principle.

In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i) of the petition.

The petitioner is at liberty to cross-examine the witnesses or the concerned persons and to put forth any such material in support of his contentions.

The Tahsildar, Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal is therefore directed to appreciate the said material and pass a reasoned order thereon in accordance with law.

With this direction the petition is disposed of.

Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.