Narayan Tryambak Faltankar vs State Of Maharashtra

(Per Mrs. Urmila Joshi Phalke, J.)

Leave is granted to the petitioner to correct the name of Police Station in the prayer clause.

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent-Police Officer Kingaon Raja to release the equipment taken into custody in connection with Crime No.0346/2025 vide FIR dated 18.12.2025 for offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.

As per contention of the petitioner that the petitioner who is originally farmer and is owner of one JCB Machine bearing No.MH-28-BK-3048 and was using the same for hiring it and was earning his livelihood. His vehicle was hired for clearance of approach road and when it was used for clearance of said approach road at Hivarkhed Purna on 18.12.2025, Village Revenue Officer intercepted the same. The Village Revenue Officer after intercepting the vehicle filed written police report to the Police Station, Kingaon Raja on 18.12.2025 alleging that there is a violation of the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. It was alleged that the equipment was found in illegal act of excavation of sand and therefore, it was seized. It is further contended that after seizure of the vehicle the petitioner approached to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Sindkhed Raja. The Magistrate after hearing both the sides allowed the application and directed the officer In- charge Police Station Kingaon Raja to hand over the interim custody of seized vehicle JCB Company’s Construction Equipment bearing its registration No.MH-28-BK-3048, Chassis No.HAR3DXSSC02980086 and Engine No.H00283970 to the applicant namely Narayan Tryambak Faltankar on executing indemnity bond of Rs.45,00,000/- without prejudice to the powers vested in the Collector of Buldhana or its subordinate officer to recover the penalty under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. It was further directed that District Collector, Buldhana or any of his subordinate officer shall be at liberty to invoke the provisions and the powers under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code or any other appropriate provisions of law and pass appropriate orders and take suitable steps for its enforcement.

It is the contention of the petitioner that despite the specific order passed by the Magistrate of releasing the vehicle the petitioner’s vehicle being kept in custody of Police Station, Kingaon Raja and since last about six months without there being any action initiated under 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 by Revenue Authority the vehicle was unnecessarily kept in custody and not handed over to the present petitioner.

During the pendency of this petition and after Magistrate Passes an order, Police Officer, Kingaon Raja Police Station has handed over the said vehicle to the Tahsildar Sindkhed Raja. Thus, it was contended by the petitioner that the respondent has disobeyed the orders of the Court and illegally and un-authorizedly handed over the possession of the said equipment to the Tahsildar after the Magistrate has passed an order to hand over said equipment to the present petitioner. Considering the intentional act of the respondent i.e. Police Officer of Kingaon Raja, Police Station the petitioner approached to this Court.

The said application is strongly opposed by the learned APP on the ground that equipment was found in illegal activity of the excavation of sand and therefore, it was handed over by the respondent to the Tahsildar and thus, no illegal act is committed by the respondent and therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who reiterated the contention and taken us various documents and submitted that despite the order was passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class on 08.01.2026, the equipment was not handed over to the present petitioner and it is illegally and unauthorizedly handed over to the Tahsildar during the pendency of this petition on 03.08.2026. Thus, he submitted that un-authorizedly respondent has retained the vehicle and disobeyed the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class and therefore, direction be issued to respondent to hand over the said equipment.

Learned APP for the State supported the action of respondent and submitted that considering the involvement of the equipment in the illegal act of the excavation, no illegality is committed by the respondent and hence, petition deserves to be dismissed.

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the documents, it reveals that Crime No.346/2025 was registered on 18.12.2025 against the present petitioner on an allegation that the equipment owned by him was found in excavation of the sand illegally without having permit on 18.12.2025 at about 2.00 p.m. On interception of the said equipment by the Revenue Authority, it was seized and the crime was registered on the basis of the report lodged by the Revenue Authority. The investigation papers further reveals that after seizure of the said equipment, the petitioner approached to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sindkhed Raja. Learned Magistrate has considered the fact that JCB Company’s Construction Equipment bearing its registration No.MH-28-BK-3048, Chassis No.HAR3DXSSC02980086 and Engine No.H00283970 which was seized by the Police Station House Officer Kingaon Raja in connection with Crime No.346/2025. The Magistrate also further considered that the petitioner is the legal owner of the vehicle and therefore, he is entitled for the possession of the said vehicle and accordingly, handed over the custody of the said vehicle to the present petitioner. After passing of the order, respondent ought to have hand over the said equipment to the present petitioner on complying with the terms and conditions which are imposed by the Magistrate on petitioner. It is apparent that respondent acted contrary to that and handed over the said possession of the vehicle to the Tahsildar illegally and un authorizedly and i.e. so when the action of the respondent for not handing over the possession was under challenged before this Court. It is further apparent from the record that Tahsildar has passed an order imposing fine and penalty on the petitioner on 02.04.2026. The said order was challenged by the present petitioner in Writ Petition No.7772/2026 before the Single Bench. The Single Judge Bench has considered the entire aspect and quashed and set aside the order of Sub Divisional Officer, Sindkhed Raja passed on 02.04.2026.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Ayub s/o Jumma Geghiwale vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. in Writ Petition No.6242/2025 decided on 26.02.2026 wherein it is observed that seizure of the JCB by the Police Authorities was without jurisdiction. Similarly the Division Bench of this Court has also considered this aspect and observed that the action of the seizure by Police Station, Balapur itself being without jurisdiction, all further actions taken in the present case by the Revenue Authority would also have to be termed as the ones without jurisdiction.

We thus, find in the present case that procedure prescribed under Section 48(8)(1)(2) has not at all been adhered to, as except bare words, there is nothing on record to show respondent authorities have complied with the said procedure. On the contrary police authority acted without any jurisdiction contrary to the provisions. When a statue require certain things to be done in a particular manner, the same is required to be done in that manner alone and not otherwise. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Babaji Kondaji Garad and Ors. vs. Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. Nasik and ors. reported in AIR 1994 SC 192 observed as under:-

Similar observation is made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandra Kishor Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad and Ors. reported in AIR 1999 SC 3558 wherein also it was held :-

We therefore, find that the action of respondent in retaining the said vehicle without complying with the statutory provisions of Section 48(8)(1)(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code despite there being an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class for handing over possession of the said vehicle is erroneous and therefore, we are inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The vehicle is kept by the respondent idly in the premises of Police Station which is also illegal act on the part of the Police Officers.

Considering that the Single Bench has already considered illegality and jurisdiction of the police authorities and already quashed the Sub Divisional Officers order, we are not inclined to impose any fine or penalty on the petitioner in view of the Section 48(7) of the Maharashra Land Revenue Code.

In view of that we proceed to pass the order:-

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending application if any stand disposed of.