AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The Petition challenges the penalty order dated 27.08.2026, passed by the Tahsildar, Arni, District Yavatmal (i.e. respondent No.3).
Facts as can be seen from the petition are as under :
That the petitioner participated in the e-tender process for sand spot/site at Mouza: Jalandri; Taluka: Arni; District Yavatmal and Mauja: Manusudhari, Taluka: Ghatanji and Vetholi, Taluka: Zari Zamni and was granted permission for excavation of sand and storage at Plot land bearing Gat No.32, admeasuring 1.21 HR upto 30.09.2026. The respondent No.3 on 11.06.2026, issued a communication to the respondent No.5 to conduct an official measurement/ survey for the stock of the persons like that of petitioner.
In pursuance to the said communication dated 11.06.2026, the respondent No.5 issued a communication to respondent No.3 on 27.07.2026, thereby informing him that upon inspection on 18.06.2026, the stock quantity at Jalandri with respect to the petitioner was approximately found to be of 4150 brass. In the backdrop of these facts, on 13.08.2026, on the basis of measurement conducted on 12.08.2026, the respondent No.3 called upon the petitioner for an explanation with respect to 1197 brass of excess sand in its premises, and accordingly the petitioner submitted his explanation on 19.08.2026 and raised doubts over the correctness of the report dated 12.08.2026 on various grounds and requested for a re-survey in presence of all the parties.
However, in the intervening period the respondent authority conducted another survey from a private agency wherein 7676.77 brass of sand was found at the site of the Petitioner. Pursuant to which the petitioner received another show cause notice dated 18.08.2026 from respondent No.3 and was again called upon to explain the excess 3283.77 excess brass of sand. In response to the show cause notice dated 18.08.2026, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 25.08.2026, wherein he denied the measurement conducted on 14.08.2026 on various grounds and also contended that the same was conducted in his absence and without any prior intimation.
In these backdrop of facts and circumstances the respondent No.3 without considering the explanation given by the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 27.08.2026 under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 thereby treating 3283.77 Brass as illegal and imposed a penalty of Rs.2,38,41,840/-(inclusive of royalty plus ten times penalty).
Mr. S.S. Sohoni, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire is de hors the provisions of law, and admittedly, no notice was served before conducting a survey by the private agency.
Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader opposed the contentions and states that an alternate remedy in the form of statutory appeal can be exhausted by the petitioner.
Rival contentions fall for my consideration.
As can be seen from the documents herein above, the Collector, without putting the petitioner to notice, has directed that there should be a resurvey by a private agency. Thus, in my considered opinion, apart from the fact that the exercise of power by the collector is de hors of any statutory power, the petitioner was not put on notice, seriously breaching the principles of natural justice. It was minimum expected of the Collector or the concerned private agency to put the petitioner to notice before conducting any resurvey in the matter.
In that view of the matter, in my considered opinion, since the principles of natural justice are not followed, the petition is maintainable and the objection regarding alternate remedy is brushed aside.
Coming to the merits of the matter, it is specifically contended by the petitioner that he has requested for resurvey and has seriously disputed the findings thereon. Be that as it may, the order of the respondent No.3 impugned in the petition passed on a survey by a private agency, rather a survey thereof, however the same was done without putting the petitioner on notice therefore, the same is not sustainable in law.
In that view of the matter, following order is passed :
O R D E R
Order dated 27.08.2026, passed by the Tahsildar Arni, District Yavatmal, in Revenue Case No.08/MNL 37/2026-27, Mouje Jalandri, Tal. Arni, District Yavatmal, is quashed and set aside.
The matter is relegated to the said authority, i.e. Tahsildar Arni, District Yavatmal, to decide the said matter after hearing the parties.
The request of the petitioner for resurveying the land by putting him on notice shall also be considered by the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, without commenting on the merits thereof, the matter is relegated as stated above. Rule is made absolute.
The petitioner is at liberty to apply to the Tahsildar/Collector for renewal/extension of the date of excavation for storage and selling which expired on 15.10.2026, looking at the backdrop of this order. If such application is made, the Collector is directed to decide it in accordance with law.