SM Construction vs District Collector & Anr.

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

The present petition challenges order dated 8^th September, 2026, passed by the Tahsildar, Yavatmal, imposing penalty of Rs.28,20,000/- on the petitioner.

It is the primary contention of Mr. S.O. Ahmed that minimal quantity of sand was found to be in excess (12.3 brass) in the measurement of sand stock conducted by Public Works Department. However, in the absence of the petitioner, the Collector ordered a survey to be conducted by a private agency without putting him on notice, in which 470 brass was found in excess. It is therefore submitted that there is a great variance apart from the fact that while conducting a survey, or rather a resurvey by a private agency, the Collector did not choose to put the petitioner a notice. He, therefore, submitted that the order is unsustainable in law.

Mr. J.Y. Ghurde, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents opposes the contention. He points me out the impugned order, which categorically records a finding that in spite of receipt of the notice, the petitioner did not choose to appear before the Authority.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the resurvey conducted by the private agency was done without putting the petitioner a notice which has resulted in great variance in the amount of excavated sand. It would be, therefore, in the interest of everyone concerned that the petitioner appears before the Tahsildar, Yavatmal and points his objections to the said variance, as also place other material on record in support of his contention. Hence, following order is passed :