Disposed

Babarao Sheshrao Shep v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC2 Aug 2018WP/4186/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Penalties for unlawful sand transportation and use of vehicles or machinery were challenged. The court upheld Rule 9 and rejected challenges to the notices and orders, while preserving appellate remedies. It directed production of seized vehicles within forty-eight hours and prompt decisions on conditional release applications.

What did the court decide?

Unproduced seized vehicles or machinery to be produced within forty-eight hours; conditional release applications to be decided after hearing within three days.

Babarao Sheshrao Shep Vs the State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp425818.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

(1) WRIT PETITION NO.4258 OF 2018

¶4

Dhannu s/o Vitthal Phapal, age: 28 years, Occ: Agril & Business, R/o Belura, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

01 The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶7

02 The Collector, Beed.

¶8

03 The Deputy Collector, Beed.

¶9

04 The Tehsildar, Majalgaon, Tehsil Office, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed.

¶10

Mr.S.G.Dodya, advocate with Mr.P.N.Mule, advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.P.N.Kutti, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶12

(2) WRIT PETITION NO. 5124 OF 2018

¶13

Maruti S/o Ratanrao Ghugre age 34 years, occ. business R/o Behind Morya Super Shoppe, Ambad, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

01 The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.

¶16

	{2}	wp425818.odt
02	The Collector, Collector Office, Jalna.
03	The Deputy Collector / Sub Divisional Officer, Ambad, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna
04	The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Ambad Taluka Ambad, District Jalna	Respondents
Mr. Mr.	A.B. Kharosekar, advocate for petitioner. P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for respondents.
	WITH (3) WRIT PETITION NO. 5265 OF	2018
Su Age R/o	nil s/o Hiraman Pawar 32 years, occ. Agril. & Business, . Salapuri,
Tq.	& Dist. Parbhani	Petitioner
	Versus
01	The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, in the Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02	The Collector, Parbhani.
03	The Deputy Collector, Pathri Dist. Parbhani
04	The Tahsildar, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth Dist. Parbhani	Respondents
Mr.	S.G. Jadhavar, advocate for petitioner.

¶17

wp425818.odt

¶18

Mr. A.B. Girase, G.P. for respondents.

¶19

WITH

¶20

(4) WRIT PETITION NO. 5266 OF 2018

¶21

Raichand s/o Harischandra Phad Age 33 years, Occ. Agril & Business R/o Kanerwadi, Tq. Parali(Vaij). Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. Petitioner

¶22

Versus

¶23

01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary in the Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

¶24

02 The Collector, Parbhani.

¶25

03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri, Dist. Parbhani

¶26

04 The Tahsildar, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani Respondents

¶27

Mr. K.S. Chavan, advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.B. Girase, G.P. for respondents.

¶28

WITH

¶29

(5) WRIT PETITION NO. 5267 OF 2018

¶30

Jagdish s/o Manikrao Phad, Age 32 years, Occ. Agri. & Business, R/o T.P.S. Road, Shivaji Nagar, Parali Vaijinath, Tq. Parali Vaijinath Dist. Beed. Petitioner

¶31

Versus

¶32

01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary

¶33

	{4}	wp425818.odt
	in the Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02	The Collector, Parbhani
03	The Deputy Collector, Pathri, Dist. Parbhani
04	The Tahsildar, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth Dist. Parbhani.	Respondents
Mr. Mr.	S.G. Jadhavar, advocate for petitioner. A.B. Girase, G.P. for respondents.
	WITH (6) WRIT PETITION NO. 5268 OF	2018
Ana Age R/o Dist	nt s/o Balasaheb Mundhe 35 years, Occ. Agril. & Business, Tokwadi, Tq. Parli, . Beed.	Petitioner
	Versus
01	The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary in the Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
02	The Collector, Parbhani
03	The Deputy Collector, Pathri Dist. Parbhani
04	The Tahsildar, Pathri, Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani	Respondents
Mr.	K.S. Chavan, advocate for petitioner.

¶34

wp425818.odt

¶35

{5}

¶36

Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondents.

¶37

WITH

¶38

(7) WRIT PETITION NO.5269 OF 2018

¶39

Ramchandra s/o Udhavrao Lahane Age 42 years, Occ. Agril. & Business, R/o Makegaon, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. Petitioner

¶40

Versus

¶41

01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary in the Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶42

02 The Collector, Parbhani

¶43

03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri Dist. Parbhani

¶44

04 The Tahsildar, Sonpeth Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. Respondents

¶45

Mr. S.G. Jadhavar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.B. Girase, G.P. for respondents.

¶46

WITH

¶47

(8) WRIT PETITION NO. 5270 OF 2018

¶48

Balasaheb s/o Uttamrao Chate Age 48 years, Occ. Agril. & Business, R/o Chukar Pimpari, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. Petitioner

¶49

Versus

¶50

01 The State of Maharashtra

¶51

wp425818.odt

¶52

{6}

¶53

Through its Secretary in the Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 02 The Collector, Parbhani 03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri, Dist. Parbhani 04 The Tahsildar, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. Respondents Mr. S.G. Jadhavar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.B. Girase, G.P. for respondents.

¶54

WITH (9) WRIT PETITION NO. 5366 OF 2018

¶55

Suryakant s/o Deorao Bhore Age 32 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o Bramhan Galli, Wadwani, Tq. Wadwani, District Beed. Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 02 The Collector, Collector Office, Beed. 03 The Deputy Collector, Sub Divisional Officer, Wadwani, Taluka Wadwani District Beed. 04 The Tahsildar,

¶56

wp425818.odt

¶57

{7}

¶58

Tahsil Office, Wadwani, Taluka Wadwani, District Beed. Respondents

¶59

Mr. A.B.Kharosekar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for respondents.

¶60

WITH

¶61

(10) WRIT PETITION NO. 5369 OF 2018

¶62

Balasaheb S/o Kondiba Ughade Age 48 years, Occ. Driver, R/o Babhali, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani Petitioner

¶63

Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 02 The District Collector, Parbhani Tq. & Dist. Parbhani 03 The Sub Divisional Officer, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani 04 The Tahsildar Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani Respondents Mr. M.P. Kale, advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for respondents.

¶64

WITH (11) WRIT PETITION NO. 5440 OF 2018

¶65

Baliram S/o Dagdoba Navghare Age 41 years, Occ. Agril. & Business, R/o Mudgal,, Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani Petitioner

wp425818.odt

{8}

Versus

01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, in the Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

¶70

02 The Collector, Parbhani

¶71

03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri Dist. Parbhani

¶72

04 The Tahsildar, Sonpeth Tq. Sonpeth Dist. Parbhani. Respondents Mr. K.S. Chavan, advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for the State.

¶73

WITH (12) WRIT PETITION NO. 5441 OF 2018

¶74

Vinayak S/o Baburao Kendre Age 33 years, Occ. Agri. & Business R/o Mudgal, Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani Petitioner

¶75

Versus

¶76

01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary in the Department of Revenue & Forest Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

¶77

02 The Collector, Parbhani

¶78

03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri, Dist. Parbhani

¶79

wp425818.odt

¶80

{9}

¶81

04 The Tahsildar, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. Respondents

¶82

Mr. K.S. Chavan, advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for respondents.

¶83

WITH

¶84

(13) WRIT PETITION NO. 5495 OF 2018

¶85

Umakant S/o Bhagwanrao Gaikwad Age 30 years, Occ. Agril. R/o Nitrud, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. Petitioner

¶86

Versus

¶87

01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

¶88

02 The District Collector, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani

¶89

03 The Additional Collector, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani

¶90

04 The Sub Divisional Officer, Pathari, Tq.Pathari Dist. Parbhani

¶91

05 The Tahsildar, Pathari, Tq.Pathari Dist. Parbhani

¶92

06 The Circle Inspector, Hadgaon, Tq. Pathari Tq. Pathari, Dist. Parbhani

¶93

07 The Police Inspector,

¶94

{10}

¶95

wp425818.odt

¶96

Police Station, Pathari Tq. Pathari, Dist. Parbhani

¶97

Respondents

¶98

Mr. S.K. Chavan, advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for respondents.

¶99

WITH

¶100

(14) WRIT PETITION NO. 5507 OF 2018

¶101

Govind s/o Mahadeo Tidke Age 29 years, Occ. Agril. R/o Chinch Wadgaon, Tq. Wadwani Dist. Beed. Petitioner

¶102

Versus

¶103

01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Revenue & Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32

¶104

02 The District Collector, Parbhani, District Parbhani. 03 The Additional Collector, Parbhani, District Parbhani. 04 The Sub Divisional Officer, Pathri, Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani. 05 The Tahsildar, Pathri, Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani. 06 The Circle Inspector, Hadgaon, Tq. Pathari, District Parbhani. 07 The Police Inspector,

¶105

wp425818.odt

¶106

Police Station, Pathari, Tq.Pathari, District Parbhani. Respondents

¶107

Mr.S.K.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents no.1 to 7.

¶108

WITH

¶109

(15) WRIT PETITION NO.6839 OF 2018

¶110

Baburao s/o Ramarao Birajdar,

¶111

age: 57 years, Occ: Agri., R/o Killari, Tq. Ausa, Dist.Latur. Petitioner

¶112

Versus

¶113

01 The State of Maharashtra,

¶114

through Secretary,

¶115

Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶116

02 The Collector, Collector Office, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.

¶117

03 Sub Divisional Officer, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶118

04 The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Omerga, Tq.Omerga, Dist.Osmanabad.

¶119

Respondents

¶120

Mr.L.C.Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶121

WITH

¶122

(16) WRIT PETITION NO.6840 OF 2018

¶123

Bhalchandra s/o Mahadeo Khobre, age: 48 years, Occ: Agri., R/o Nadi-Hatarga, Nilanga, District Latur. Petitioner

¶124

wp425818.odt

¶125

Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 02 The Collector, Collector Office, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. 03 Sub Divisional Officer, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. 04 The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Omerga, Tq.Omerga, Dist.Osmanabad. Respondents Mr.L.C.Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for Respondents. WITH (17) WRIT PETITION NO.6841 OF 2018

¶126

Ravindra s/o Chandrakant Lamture, age: 60 years, Occ: Agri., R/o Kukalgaon, Tq. Nilanga, Dist.Osmanabad. Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 02 The Collector, Collector Office, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. 03 Sub Divisional Officer, Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. 04 The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Omerga, Tq.Omerga, Dist.Osmanabad. Respondents

¶127

{13}

¶128

wp425818.odt

¶129

Mr.L.C.Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶130

WITH

¶131

(18) WRIT PETITION NO.6842 OF 2018

¶132

Balaji s/o Revanappa Waghmode,

¶133

age: 36 years, Occ: Agri., R/o Kunali, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad. Petitioner

¶134

Versus

¶135

01 The State of Maharashtra,

¶136

through Secretary,

¶137

Revenue & Forest Department,

¶138

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶139

02 The Collector,

¶140

Collector Office,

¶141

Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.

¶142

03 Sub Divisional Officer,

¶143

Tal. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶144

04 The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Omerga, Tq.Omerga, Dist.Osmanabad. Respondents

¶145

Mr.L.C.Patil, advocate for the petitioner.

¶146

Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶147

WITH

¶148

Rajendra s/o Panditrao Deshmukh, ager: 38 years, Occ: Agril. & Business, R/o 85, Jain Galli, Hingoli, District Hingoli. Petitioner

¶149

Versus

¶150

01 The State of Maharashtra,

¶151

{14}

¶152

wp425818.odt

¶153

through its Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 02 The District Collector, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. 03 Sub Divisional Officer, Tal. Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli. 04 The Tahsildar, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. Respondents Mr.M.P.Kale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶154

WITH (20) WRIT PETITION NO.6950 OF 2018

¶155

Chandrakant s/o Ramakant More, age: 22 years, Occ: Agril. & Business, R/o Mangalmurti Road, Karegaon Road, Parbhani, Tq. & District Parbhani. Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 02 The District Collector, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. 03 Sub Divisional Officer, Tal. Basmat, Tq. Basmat, Dist. Hingoli. 04 The Tahsildar, Basmat, Tq. Basmat, Dist. Hingoli. Respondents

¶156

Mr.M.P.Kale, advocate for the petitioner.

¶157

wp425818.odt

¶158

{15}

¶159

Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶160

WITH

¶161

(21) WRIT PETITION NO.7049 OF 2018

¶162

Gorakh s/o Radhakisan Mote, age: 43 years, Occ: Agril. & Business, R/o More Galli, Gevrai, Tq.Gevrai, District Beed. Petitioner

¶163

Versus

¶164

01 The State of Maharashtra,

¶165

through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶166

02 Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

¶167

03 The Collector, Beed,

¶168

District Beed.

¶169

04 Sub Divisional Officer, Georai, Taluka Georai, District Beed.

¶170

05 The Tahsildar,

¶171

Georai, Taluka Georai, District Beed.

¶172

Mr.G.K.Naik-Thigle, advocate for the petitioner.

¶173

Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 5.

¶174

WITH

¶175

(22) WRIT PETITION NO.7057 OF 2018

¶176

Dnyaneshwar Mahadeo Jaybhay,

¶177

age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o Vidyanagar, Beed. Tq. & District Beed. Petitioner

¶178

Versus

¶179

	{16}	wp425818.odt
01	The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
02	The Collector, Beed.
03	The Sub Divisional Officer, Beed, Tq. & District Beed.
04	Tahsildar, Beed, Tq. & District Beed.	Respondents
Mr.S. Mr.V.S	J.Salunke, advocate for the petitioner. .Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4.
	WITH (23) WRIT PETITION NO.7059 OF	2018
Nabaj age: 4 R/o P Beed Taluk	i s/o Rangnath Ambhore, 6 years, Occ: Business, lot No.19, Deolali Parisar, Bye Pass, Aurangabad, a & District Aurangabad.	Petitioner
	Versus
01	The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
02	The Collector, Collector Office, Aurangabad.
03	The Police Inspector, Police Station, Karmad, Taluka & District Aurangabad.
04	The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Aurangabad,
	Taluka & District Aurangabad.	Respondents

¶180

{17}

¶181

wp425818.odt

¶182

Mr.A.B.Kharosekar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4.

¶183

WITH

¶184

(24) WRIT PETITION NO.7076 OF 2018

¶185

Satish Chandrasen Kadam, age: 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o Yelambghat, Tq. & District Beed. Petitioner

¶186

Versus

¶187

01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶188

02 The Collector, Beed.

¶189

03 The Sub Divisional Officer, Beed, Tq. & District Beed.

¶190

04 Tahsildar, Beed, Tq. & District Beed. Respondents

¶191

Mr.S.J.Salunke, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶192

WITH

¶193

(25) WRIT PETITION NO.7077 OF 2018

¶194

Mahadev s/o Haridas Hulgunde, age: 35 years, Occ: Driver, R/o Nadi Hattarga, Tq. Nilanga, District Latur. Petitioner

¶195

Versus

¶196

01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶197

wp425818.odt

¶198

{18}

¶199

02 The Collector, Collector Office, Latur. 03 The Sub Divisional Officer, Collector Office, Omerga, District Osmanabad. 04 The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Omerga, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad. Respondents Mr.K.B.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶200

WITH (26) WRIT PETITION NO.7133 OF 2018

¶201

Anantkumar s/o Munjaji Kurhe, age: 45 years, Occ: Agril & Business, R/o Khuja, Tq. Purna, Dist.Parbhani. Petitioner

¶202

Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 02 The District Collector, Parbhani, Tq. & District Parbhani. 03 The Sub Divisional Officer, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist.Parbhani. 04 The Tahsildar, Parbhani, Tq. & District Parbhani. Respondents Mr.M.P.Kale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

WITH

wp425818.odt

{19}

(27) WRIT PETITION NO.7142 OF 2018

¶207

Akash s/o Piraji Adkine, age: 30 years, Occ: Agril. & Business, R/o Rav Rajur, Tq. Palam, District Parbhani. Petitioner

¶208

Versus

¶209

01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 02 The District Collector, Parbhani, Tq. & District Parbhani. 03 The Sub Divisional Officer, Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani. 04 The Tahsildar, Palam, Tq. Plam, Dist.Parbhani. Respondent Mr.Mahesh P. Kale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶210

WITH

¶211

(28) WRIT PETITION NO.7143 OF 2018

¶212

Munjaji s/o Vitthal Lazade, age: 65 years, Occ: Agril. & Business, R/o Sawangi (Kh), Tq. & District Parbhani. Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 02 The District Collector, Parbhani, Tq. & District Parbhani.

¶213

wp425818.odt

¶214

{20}

¶215

03 The Sub Divisional Officer, Parbhani, Taluka and District Parbhani. 04 The Tahsildar, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. Respondents

¶216

Mr.Mahesh P. Kale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶217

WITH (29) WRIT PETITION NO.7235 OF 2018

¶218

Vithal s/o Kadaji Jadhav, age: 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o Pawarwadi, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed. Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 02 The Collector, Collector Office, Beed. 03 The Sub-Divisional Officer, Majalgaon, Tq.Majalgaon, District Beed. 04 The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Majalgaon, Tq.Majalgaon, Dist.Beed. Respondents

¶219

Mr.H.P.Jadhav, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶220

WITH

¶221

(30) WRIT PETITION NO.7725 OF 2018

¶222

Jalindar s/o Malharrao Pisal,

¶223

{21} wp425818.odt age: 52 years, Occ: Agril & Business, R/o Teacher Colony, Georai, Tq. Georai, District Beed. Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, in the Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 02 The Collector, Beed, Tq. & District Beed. 03 The Sub Divisional Officer, Georai, District Beed, 04 The Tahsildar, Georai, Tq.Georai, District Beed. Respondents Mr.S.G.Kawade, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶224

WITH

¶225

(31) WRIT PETITION NO.7726 OF 2018

¶226

Shrikisan s/o Rambhau Wadne, age: 50 years, Occ: Agril. & Business, R/o Vadgaon (Gunda), Tq. & District Beed. Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 02 The District Collector, Beed, Tq. & District Beed.

¶227

{22} wp425818.odt

¶228

03 The Sub Divisional Officer, Beed, District Beed. 04 The Tahsildar, Beed, Tq. & District Beed. Respondents

¶229

Mr.V.P.Savant, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶230

WITH (32) WRIT PETITION NO.7728 OF 2018

¶231

Dipak @ Aba s/o Pandurang Raut, age: 36 years, Occ: Agriculture and Business, R/o House No.1041, Kasba Peth, Barshi, Taluka Barshi, District Solapur. Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 02 The Collector, Collector Office, Beed. 03 The Sub Divisional Officer, Majalgaon, Taluka Majalgaon, District Beed. 04 The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Majalgaon, Taluka Majalgaon, District Beed. Respondents

¶232

Mr.A.B.Kharosekar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶233

WITH (33) WRIT PETITION NO.7732 OF 2018

¶234

wp425818.odt

¶235

{23}

¶236

Santosh s/o Haribhau Patait, age: 34 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Gajanan Nagar, Majalgaon, Tq.Majalgaon, District Beed. Petitioner

¶237

Versus

¶238

01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 02 The Collector, Collector Office, Beed. 03 The Deputy Collector, Collector Office, Majalgaon, District Beed. 04 The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Majalgaon, Taluka Majalgaon, District Beed. 05 The Police Inspector, Police Station (Rural), Majalgaon, Dist.Beed. Respondents

¶239

Mr.S.V.Jadhawar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶240

WITH

¶241

(34) WRIT PETITION NO.4195 OF 2018

¶242

Ajay s/o Manik Mundhe,

¶243

age: 40 years, Occ: Agril & Business, R/oManiknagar, Parli (Vaij), Tq. Parli (Vaij), District Beed. Petitioner

¶244

Versus

¶245

01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, in the Department of Revenue

¶246

wp425818.odt

¶247

and Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 02 The Collector, Parbhani. 03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri, District Parbhani. 04 The Tahsildar, Pathri, Tahsil Office, Pathri, Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani. Respondents

¶248

Mr.K.S.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Kulkarni, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶249

WITH (35) WRIT PETITION NO.4194 OF 2018

¶250

Vyankati s/o Parmeshwar Mundhe, age: 40 years, Occ: Agril & Business, R/o Zola, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani. Petitioner

¶251

Versus

¶252

01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, in the Department of Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 02 The Collector, Parbhani. 03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri, District Parbhani. 04 The Tahsildar, Pathri, Tahsil Office, Pathri, Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani. Respondents

¶253

Mr.K.S.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶254

wp425818.odt

¶255

WITH

¶256

(36) WRIT PETITION NO.4188 OF 2018

¶257

Balasaheb s/o Rambhau Nagargoje, age: 33 years, Occ: Agril & Business, R/o Mandekhali, Tq. Parli, District Beed. Petitioner

¶258

Versus

¶259

01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, in the Department of Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶260

02 The Collector, Parbhani.

¶261

03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri, District Parbhani.

¶262

04 The Tahsildar, Pathri, Tahsil Office, Pathri, Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani. Respondents

¶263

Mr.K.S.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Kulkarni, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶264

WITH

¶265

(37) WRIT PETITION NO.4187 OF 2018

¶266

Govind s/o Nivrutti Shep, age: 38 years, Occ: Agril & Business, R/o Shepwadi, Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed. Petitioner

¶267

Versus

¶268

01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, in the Department of Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya,

¶269

wp425818.odt

¶270

Mumbai-32. 02 The Collector, Parbhani. 03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri, District Parbhani. 04 The Tahsildar, Pathri, Tahsil Office, Pathri, Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani. Respondents Mr.K.S.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Kulkarni, A.G.P. for Respondents. WITH (38) WRIT PETITION NO.4186 OF 2018

¶271

Babarao s/o Sheshrao Shep, age: 40 years, Occ: Agril & Business, R/o Shepwadi, Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed. Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, in the Department of Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 02 The Collector, Parbhani. 03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri, District Parbhani. 04 The Tahsildar, Pathri, Tahsil Office, Pathri, Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani. Respondents Mr.K.S.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Kulkarni, A.G.P. for Respondents.

{27}

wp425818.odt

WITH

(39) WRIT PETITION NO.4185 OF 2018

¶276

Ramchandra s/o Udhav Lahane, age: 40 years, Occ: Agril & Business, R/o Makegaon, Tq. Renapur, District Latur. Petitioner

¶277

Versus

¶278

01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, in the Department of Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶279

02 The Collector, Parbhani.

¶280

03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri, District Parbhani.

¶281

04 The Tahsildar, Pathri, Tahsil Office, Pathri, Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani. Respondents

¶282

Mr.K.S.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.K.Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶283

WITH

¶284

(40) WRIT PETITION NO.4184 OF 2018

¶285

Shriram s/o Tukaram Kendre, age: 48 years, Occ: Agril & Business, R/o Faudewadi, Tq. Renapur, District Latur. Petitioner

¶286

Versus

¶287

01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, in the Department of Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya,

wp425818.odt

{28}

Mumbai-32.

02 The Collector, Parbhani. 03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri, District Parbhani. 04 The Tahsildar, Pathri, Tahsil Office, Pathri, Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani. Respondents

¶292

Mr.K.S.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Kulkarni, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶293

WITH (41) WRIT PETITION NO.4210 OF 2018

¶294

Jivan s/o Diliprao Jagtap, age: 28 years, Occ: Agril and Business, R/o Sawargaon, Tq.Majalgaon, District Beed. Petitioner

¶295

Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 02 The Collector, Beed. 03 The Deputy Collector, Beed. 04 The Tahsildar, Majalgaon, Tahsil Office, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist.Beed. Respondents

¶296

Mr.S.G.Dodge, advocate with Mr.P.N.Muley, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶297

WITH

¶298

(42) WRIT PETITION NO.8174 OF 2018

¶299

{29} wp425818.odt

¶300

Shivnath s/o Krushna Kedar, age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture and Business, R/o More Vasti, At Post Rajpimpari, Tq.Georai, District Beed. Petitioner

¶301

Versus

¶302

01 The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 02 The Collector, Collector Office, Jalna. 03 The Deputy Collector, Sub Divisional Officer, Ambad, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna. 04 The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Ambad, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna. Respondents

¶303

Mr.A.B.Kharosekar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for Respondents.

¶304

WITH (43) WRIT PETITION NO.8170 OF 2018

¶305

Premsing s/o Magansing Chungade, ageL 55 years, Occ: Agricultural and Business, R/o Ambedkar Nagar, Rajput Mohalla, Ambad, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna. Petitioner

¶306

Versus

¶307

01 The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department,

¶308

{30} wp425818.odt Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 02 The Collector, Collector Office, Jalna 03 The Deputy Collector/ Sub Divisional Officer, Ambad, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna. 04 The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Ambad, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna. Respondents Mr.A.B.Kharosekar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.K.Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondents. WITH (44) WRIT PETITION NO.5726 OF 2018 Kachru s/o Bapurao Jadhav, age: 34 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Umrad, Taluka and District Beed. Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 02 The Collector, Beed District Beed. 03 The Sub Divisional Officer, Beed, District Beed. 04 The Tahsildar, Beed, District Beed. Respondents Mr.V.D.Gunale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.M.Ganachari, A.G.P. for Respondents.

{31}

wp425818.odt

WITH

(45) WRIT PETITION NO.8061 OF 2018

¶313

Ajinkya s/o Baban Pawar, age: 24 years, Occ: Business, R/o Laxminagar, Bhingar, Tq. & District Ahmednagar. Petitioner

¶314

Versus

¶315

01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶316

02 The Collector, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar. 03 The Tahsildar, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar. Respondents

¶317

Mr.P.A.Pisal, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶318

(46) WRIT PETITION NO.5145 OF 2018

¶319

Pravin s/o Kachru Jagtap, age: 30 years, Occ:Business, R/o Ban Shendra, Tq.Kannad, District Aurangabad. Petitioner

¶320

Versus

¶321

01 The State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.

¶322

02 The Tahsildar and Taluka Executive Magistrate, Kannad, Tq. Kannad, Dist.Aurangabad.

¶323

{32}

¶324

wp425818.odt

¶325

03 The Police Inspector, Police Station, Kannad (Rural), Tq. Kannad, Dist.Aurangabad.

¶326

Respondents

¶327

Mr.V.D.Salunke, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.K.Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶328

WITH

¶329

(47) WRIT PETITION NO.5262 OF 2018

¶330

Devanand s/o Rajabhau Deshmukh, age: 42 years, Occ: Agril. & Business, R/o Sirsala, Tq. Parali (Vaij), District Beed. Petitioner

¶331

Versus

¶332

01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, in the Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶333

02 The Collector, Parbhani.

¶334

03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri, District Parbhani. 04 The Tahsildar, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, District Parbhani. Respondents

¶335

Mr.S.G.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.K.Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶336

WITH

¶337

(48) WRIT PETITION NO.5263 OF 2018

¶338

Salim Khan s/o Mehandi Khan, age: 23 years, Occ: Agril. & Business,

¶339

{33}

¶340

wp425818.odt

¶341

R/o Paithan Mohalla Mandawa, Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed.

¶342

Petitioner

¶343

Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, in the Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶344

02 The Collector, Parbhani. 03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri, District Parbhani. 04 The Tahsildar, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, District Parbhani. Respondents Mr.K.S,Chavan, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.K.Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶345

WITH (49) WRIT PETITION NO.5264 OF 2018

¶346

Balasaheb s/o Rambhau Nagargoje, age: 32 years, Occ: Agril. & Business, R/o Mandekhal, Tq. Parali (Vaij), District Beed. Petitioner

¶347

Versus

¶348

01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, in the Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶349

02 The Collector, Parbhani.

¶350

wp425818.odt

¶351

03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri, District Parbhani. 04 The Tahsildar, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, District Parbhani. Respondents

¶352

Mr.S.G.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.K.Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶353

WITH (50) WRIT PETITION NO.5271 OF 2018

¶354

M/s Tushar Fabricators, through its Proprietor, Shri Harischandra s/o Eknath Parekar, age: 42 years, Occ: Agril. & Business, R/o Dautpur, Tq. Parali (Vaij), District Beed. Petitioner

¶355

Versus

¶356

01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, in the Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶357

02 The Collector, Parbhani. 03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri, District Parbhani. 04 The Tahsildar, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, District Parbhani. Respondents

¶358

Mr.S.G.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for Respondents.

{35}

wp425818.odt

WITH

(51) WRIT PETITION NO.5272 OF 2018

¶363

Jivraj s/o Ankush Gitte, age: 48 years, Occ: Agril. & Business, R/o Belamba, Tq. Parali (Vaij), District Beed. Petitioner

¶364

Versus

¶365

01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, in the Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶366

02 The Collector, Parbhani. 03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri, District Parbhani.

¶367

04 The Tahsildar, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, District Parbhani. Respondents

¶368

Mr.Kalyan S. Chavan, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for Respondents.

¶369

WITH

¶370

(52) WRIT PETITION NO.5273 OF 2018

¶371

Sambhaji s/o Gangaram Phad, age: 47 years, Occ: Agril. & Business, R/o Padmawati Galli, Parali Vaijinath, Tq. Parali Vaijinath, District Beed. Petitioner

¶372

Versus

¶373

01 The State of Maharashtra,

¶374

wp425818.odt

¶375

{36}

¶376

through its Secretary, in the Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶377

02 The Collector, Parbhani. 03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri, District Parbhani. 04 The Tahsildar, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, District Parbhani.

¶378

Respondents

¶379

Mr.S.G.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for Respondents.

¶380

WITH

¶381

(53) WRIT PETITION NO.5274 OF 2018

¶382

Suhas s/o Vasantrao Kshirsagar, age: 32 years, Occ: Agril. & Business, R/o Ambajogai, Shikshak Colony, Jijamata Chowk, Latur Road, Ambajogai, District Beed. Petitioner

¶383

Versus

¶384

01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, in the Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶385

02 The Collector, Parbhani. 03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri, District Parbhani.

¶386

04 The Tahsildar,

¶387

wp425818.odt

¶388

Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, District Parbhani. Respondents

¶389

Mr.S.G.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for Respondents.

¶390

WITH

¶391

(54) WRIT PETITION NO.5275 OF 2018

¶392

Mahadeo s/o Shriram Gadade, age: 34 years, Occ: Agril. & Business, R/o Daudpur, Tq. Parali Vaijinath, District Beed. Petitioner

¶393

Versus

¶394

01 The State of Maharashtra,

¶395

through its Secretary, in the Department of

¶396

Revenue & Forest,

¶397

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶398

02 The Collector,

¶399

Parbhani.

¶400

03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri, District Parbhani.

¶401

04 The Tahsildar, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, District Parbhani. Respondents

¶402

Mr.S.G.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for Respondents.

¶403

WITH

¶404

(55) WRIT PETITION NO.5276 OF 2018

¶405

Abhijit s/o Ashokrao Jadhav,

¶406

{38}

¶407

wp425818.odt

¶408

age: 40 years, Occ: Agril. & Business, R/o Shindi, Tq. Kaij, District Beed. Petitioner

¶409

Versus

¶410

01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, in the Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 02 The Collector, Parbhani. 03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri, District Parbhani. 04 The Tahsildar, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, District Parbhani. Respondents Mr.K.S.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for Respondents.

¶411

WITH (56) WRIT PETITION NO. 5534 OF 2018

¶412

Keshav s/o Ranuji Gholap Age 48 years, Occ. Business R/o Jajid Jawala, Tq. Majalgaon Dist. Beed. Petitioner

¶413

Versus

¶414

01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 02 The Advocate General Office of Advocate General Mumbai

¶415

{39} wp425818.odt 03 The Collector, Beed 04 The Sub-Divisional Officer, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalagaon, Dist. Beed. 05 Tahsildar, Majalgaon Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. 06 The Police Inspector, Police Station, Majalgaon Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. Respondents Mr. S.K. Chavan, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents. WITH (57) WRIT PETITION NO. 5541 OF 2018 Narayan S/o Dnyanobad Taur Age 47 years, Occ. Business R/o Kawadgaon-Thadi, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 02 The Collector, Beed. 03 The Sub-Divisional Officer, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon Dist. Beed. 04 Tahsildar, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. 05 The Police Inspector, Police Station, Majalgaon Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. Respondents

¶416

{40}

¶417

wp425818.odt

¶418

Mr. S.K. Chavan, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶419

WITH

¶420

(58) WRIT PETITION NO. 5601 OF 2018

¶421

Anant s/o Vishwambhar Korde Age 33 years, Occ. Agril. R/o Harki Limbgaon, Tq. Majalgaon Dist. Beed. Petitioner

¶422

Versus

¶423

01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

¶424

02 The Advocate General

¶425

Office of Advocate General Mumbai

¶426

03 The Collector, Beed.

¶427

04 The Sub-Divisional Officer, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon Dist. Beed.

¶428

05 Tahsildar, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.

¶429

06 The Police Inspector, Police Station, Majalgaon Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. Respondents

¶430

Mr. S.K. Chavan, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶431

WITH

¶432

(59) WRIT PETITION NO. 5745 OF 2018

¶433

Kishor s/o Shamrao Bansode Age 32 years, Occ. Agril. r/o Bhamathan, Tq. Shrirampur District Ahmednagar Petitioner

wp425818.odt

{41}

Versus

01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Revenue and Forest Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 02 The Collector, Collector Office, Ahmednagar 03 The Sub Divisional Officer Shrirampur Division, Shrirampur District Ahmednagar 04 The Tahsildar, Shrirampur District Ahmednagar 05 The Circle Inspector, Takali Bhan Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar 06 The Talathi, Bhamathan, Tq. Shrirampur District Ahmednagar. Respondents Mr. B.G. Sagade, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents. WITH (60) WRIT PETITION NO. 5848 OF 2018

¶438

Ashok S/o Malakajappa Dubari Aged 40 years, Occ.Agriculture R/o Shirwal, Tq. Afzalpur, Dist. Gulbarga (Karnataka State) Petitioner

¶439

Versus

¶440

01 The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra in

¶441

{42} wp425818.odt

¶442

Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai 32 02 The Collector, Osmanabad 03 The Deputy Collector, Osmanabad 04 The Tahsildar, Omerga Dist. Osmanabad 05 The Naib Tahsildar Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad 06 The Circle Officer, Omerga, Tq. Omerga Dist. Osmanabad 07 The Talathi Khasgi, Tq.Omerga Dist. Osmanabad 08 The Police Station Officer, Police Station Omerga Dist. Osmanabad Respondents Mr. S.S. Choudhary, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶443

WITH (61) WRIT PETITION NO. 5849 OF 2018

¶444

Prashant s/o Babruwan Kale Aged 35 years, Occ. Agriculture and Driver, R/o Lohara, Tq. Lohara Dist. Osmanabad Petitioner Versus

¶445

01 The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary to the

¶446

wp425818.odt

¶447

{43}

¶448

Government of Maharashtra in Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai 32

¶449

02 The Collector, Osmanabad

¶450

03 The Deputy Collector, Osmanabad

¶451

04 The Tahsildar, Lohara

¶452

Dist. Osmanabad

¶453

05 The Naib Tahsildar Lohara,

¶454

Dist. Osmanabad

¶455

06 The Talathi Dhanuri, Tq. Lohara Dist. Osmanabad

¶456

07 The Talathi Dastapur, Tq. Lohara Dist. Osmanabad

¶457

08 The Police Station Officer,

¶458

Police Station Murum

¶459

Dist. Osmanabad Respondents

¶460

Mr. S.S. Choudhary, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶461

WITH

¶462

(62) WRIT PETITION NO. 5936 OF 2018

¶463

Rambhau S/o Vithalrao Dahe Age 36 years, Occ. Agril. & Business R/o Gajanan Nagar, Manwat, Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani Petitioner

¶464

Versus

¶465

01 The State of Maharashtra

¶466

Through its Secretary

¶467

{44} wp425818.odt in the Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 02 The Collector, Parbhani 03 The Deputy Collector, Pathri Dist. Parbhani 04 The Tahsildar, Pathri, Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani Respondents Mr. K.S. Chavan, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents. WITH (63) WRIT PETITION NO. 5937 OF 2018 Mohan S/o Digambar Mahamale Age 36 years, Occ. Agril. & Business R/o Hadulki, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist. Latur Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary in the Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 02 The Collector, Parbhani 03 The Deputy Collector, Gangakhed Dist. Parbhani 04 The Tahsildar, Palam, Tq. Palam, Dist. Parbhani Respondents Mr. K.S. Chavan, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶468

WITH

¶469

(64) WRIT PETITION NO. 6107 OF 2018

¶470

wp425818.odt

¶471

{45}

¶472

Nilesh Constructions Through Proprietor Shankarrao Uttamrao Patil Age 65 years, Occ. Business R/o Lalbag Colony, Dhule Chufuli At Nandurbar, Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar

¶473

Petitioner

¶474

Versus

¶475

01 The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Revenue & Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32

¶476

02 The Collector, Nandurbar Dist. Nandurbar

¶477

03 Sub Divisional Officer, Nandurbar, Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar 04 The Tahsildar, Nandurbar Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar

¶478

05 Nilkanth Bhaurao Marathe Age 35, Occ Job R/o Vidyanagar Hill, Dhule Rd. At Nandurbar, Tq & Dist. Nandurbar Respondents

¶479

Mr. R.M. Jain, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents 1 to 4. Mr. A.R. Sayed, for respondent no. 5.

¶480

WITH

¶481

(65) WRIT PETITION NO. 6150 OF 2018

¶482

Krushna s/o Babasaheb Solanke Age 32 years, Occ. Agri. & Business R/o Pthri, Tq. Pathri Dist. Parbhani Petitioner

¶483

Versus

¶484

01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary

¶485

{46} wp425818.odt

¶486

Revenue & Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 02 The District Collector, Beed, Dist. Beed. 03 The Additional Collector, Beed, Dist. Beed 04 The Sub Divisional Officer, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon Dist. Beed. 05 The Tahsildar, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon Dist. Beed. 06 The Circle Inspector, Talkhed, Tq. Majalgaon Dist. Beed. 07 The Police Inspector Police Station, Majalgaon Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. Respondents Mr. S.K. Chavan, advocate for petitioners. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents. WITH (66) WRIT PETITION NO. 6231 OF 2018 Arjun S/o Gunwantrao Nayak Age 35 Years, Occ. Agril. & Business R/o Bhagwati, Tq. Sengaon Dist. Hingoli Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 02 The District Collector, Hingoli

¶487

{47}

¶488

wp425818.odt

¶489

Tq. & Dist. Hingoli 03 The Sub Divisional Officer Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli 04 The Tahsildar Hingoli Tq. & Dist. Hingoli Mr. M.P. Kale, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶490

Respondents

¶491

WITH

¶492

(67) WRIT PETITION NO. 6508 OF 2018

¶493

Shaikh Maheboob s/o Shaikh Biban Age 32 Years, Occ. Agri. & Business R/o Dhangar Takali, Tq. Purna Dist. Parbhani Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 02 The District Collector, Parbhani Tq. & Dist. Parbhani 03 The Sub Divisional Officer Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed Dist. Parbhani 04 The Tahsildar Purna Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani Respondents Mr. M.P. Kale, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶494

WITH

¶495

(68) WRIT PETITION NO. 6653 OF 2018

¶496

Kanifnath Baburao Nagare Age 48 years, Occ. Business

¶497

{48} R/o Sangam Jalgaon, Tq. Georai Dist. Beed.

¶498

wp425818.odt

¶499

Petitioner

¶500

Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 02 Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad 03 The Collector, Beed District Beed. 04 Sub Divisional Officer Georai, Taluka Georai District Beed. 05 The Tahsildar Georai, Taluka Georai District Beed. Respondents Mr. G.K. Thigale, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶501

WITH

¶502

(69) WRIT PETITION NO. 6827 OF 2018

¶503

Shanker s/o Babulal Pathan Age 28 years, Occ. Business R/o Lane No. 6 Hussain Colony Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad Tq. & Dist Aurangabad. Petitioner

¶504

Versus

¶505

01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Revenue & Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32

¶506

wp425818.odt

¶507

{49}

¶508

02 The District Collector, Jalna, Dist. Jalna 03 The Sub Divisional Officer, Ambad, Tq. Ambad Dist. Jalna 04 The Tahsildar Ambad, Tq. Ambad Dist. Jalna Respondents Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶509

WITH (70) WRIT PETITION NO. 8205 OF 2018

¶510

Azar Ayyub Gavandi Age 38 years, Occ. Agril. R/o Lohara, Tq. Lohara Gavandi Plotting Dist. Osmanabad

¶511

Petitioner

¶512

Versus

¶513

01 The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 02 The Collector Collector Office Osmanabad 03 The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-Divisional Office Omerga, Tq. Omerga Dist. Osmanabad 04 The Tahsildar Tahsildar Office, Lohara, Tq. Lohara Dist. Osmanabad Respondents

¶514

wp425818.odt

¶515

{50}

¶516

Mr. R.P. Adgaonkar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondents.

¶517

WITH

¶518

(71) WRIT PETITION NO. 8206 OF 2018

¶519

Zaheer Ahmed Ali Ma Aziz Age 45 years, Occ. Transporter R/o 11-2-30, Kanteshwar Nizamabad Tq. & Dist. Nizamabad Petitioner

¶520

Versus

¶521

01 The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

¶522

02 The Collector, Nanded Dist. Nanded

¶523

03 Sub Divisional Officer Nanded, Tq. & Dist Nanded

¶524

04 The Tahsildar, Biloli Tq. & Dist. Nanded Respondents

¶525

Mr. Syed Azizoddin R., advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶526

WITH

¶527

(72) WRIT PETITION NO. 8207 OF 2018

¶528

Swami Santhosh Siddappa

¶529

Age 42 years, Occ. Business R/o 2-5-71, Near Head Post Office Bodhan, Tq. Bodhan, Dist. Nizamabad Petitioner

¶530

Versus

¶531

01 The State of Maharashtra

¶532

Through Secretary

¶533

{51} wp425818.odt Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 02 The Collector, Nanded Dist. Nanded. 03 Sub Divisional Officer, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded 04 The Tahasildar, Biloli, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. Respondents Mr. Syed Azizoddin R., advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents. WITH (73) WRIT PETITION NO. 8208 OF 2018 P. Naga Bhushanam Mariah Age 42 years, Occ. Transporter R/o 6-12, Belal Farm Bodhan Nizamabad, Tq. & Dist. Nizamabad Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 02 The Collector, Nanded Dist. Nanded 03 Sub Divisional Officer Nanded Tq. & Dist Nanded 04 The Tahasildar, Biloli, Tq. & Dist. Nanded Respondents Mr. Syed Azizoddin R, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.

WITH

{52}

wp425818.odt

(74) WRIT PETITION NO. 8209 OF 2018

¶538

Kasarelli Hanmanthu Gangaram Age 38 years, Occ. Transporter R/o H No. 5-55/1, Banjagally, Sloora, Nizamabad Tq & Dist. Nizamabad (T.S.) Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 02 The Collector, Nanded Dist. Nanded. 03 Sub Divisional Officer Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded 04 The Tahasildar, Biloli Tq. & Dist. Nanded Respondents Mr. Syed Azizoddin R., advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents. WITH (75) WRIT PETITION NO. 7842 OF 2018 Dhanraj s/o Sandipan Bidgar Age 38 years, occ. Agril & Business R/o Dautpur, Tq. Parli Vaijnath District Beed. Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 02 The Collector Collector Office Beed

¶539

{53}	wp425818.odt
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
03 The District Mining Officer Collector Office, Beed Tq. & Dist. Beed.
04 The Tahsildar
Tahsil Office Majalgaon Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed	Respondents
Mr. A.V. Rakh, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH (76) WRIT PETITION NO. 7540 OF 2018
Suresh s/o Haribhau More Age 47 years, Occ. Agril. & Business
R/o Roulasgaon,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.	Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
02 The Collector, Collector Office, Beed.
03 The Sub Divisional Officer Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
04 The Tahsildar,
Tahsil Office, Georai
Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed.	Respondents
Mr. A.B. Kharosekar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
WITH
(77) WRIT PETITION NO. 7539 OF 2018

¶540

{54} wp425818.odt

¶541

Subhash s/o Vitthalrao Ghane Age 40 years, occ. Agril. & Business R/o Gondi, Tq. Ambad District Jalna Petitioner

¶542

Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya Mumbai 400 032. 02 The Collector, Collector Office, Jalna 03 The Sub Divisional Officer Jalna, Tq. Jalna Dist. Jalna 04 The Tahsildar Tahsil Office, Ambad Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna Respondents Mr. A.B. Kharosekar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents. WITH

¶543

(78) WRIT PETITION NO. 7538 OF 2018

¶544

Hari s/o Babasaheb Jadhav Age 34 years, occ. Agril. & Business R/o At Adola, Post Gangamasla Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. Petitioner

¶545

Versus

¶546

01 The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 02 The Collector,

¶547

{55} wp425818.odt Collector Office, Beed 03 The Sub Divisional Officer Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon Dist. Beed. 04 The Tahsildar Tahsil Office, Majalgaon Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed Respondents Mr. A.B. Kharosekar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents. WITH (79) WRIT PETITION NO. 7537 OF 2018 Vitthal s/o Rangnath Solunke Age 55 years, occ. Agril. & Business R/o Gondi, Tq. Ambad Dist. Jalna Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 02 The Collector Collector Office, Jalna 03 The Sub Divisional Officer Jalna, Tq. Jalna Dist. Jalna 04 The Tahsildar Tahsil Office, Ambad Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna Respondents Mr. A.B. Kharosekar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.

wp425818.odt

{56}

WITH

(80) WRIT PETITION NO. 7464 OF 2018

¶552

Vishnu Kalidas Mundhe

¶553

age 40 years, occ. Agri. R/o Govindpur, Tq. Kalamb District Osmanabad Petitioner

¶554

Versus

¶555

01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶556

02 The Collector Collector Office, Osmanabad

¶557

03 The Sub-Divisional Officer Collector Office, Osmanabad

¶558

04 The Tahsildar Tahsil Office, Osmanabad Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad Respondents

¶559

Mr. H.P. Bondar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶560

WITH (81) WRIT PETITION NO. 7869 OF 2018

¶561

Hanif Shikalgar S/o Abdul Kadar age 28 years, occ. Business R/o Sathe nagar, Murum Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad Petitioner

¶562

Versus

¶563

01 The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Department

¶564

wp425818.odt

¶565

{57}

¶566

Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.

¶567

02 The Collector, Collector Office, Osmanabad

¶568

03 The Deputy Collector / Sub Divisional Officer, Omerga, Tq. Omerga Dist. Osmanabad

¶569

04 The Tahsildar Tahsil Office, Omerga Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶570

Respondents

¶571

Mr. A.B. Kharosekar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶572

WITH

¶573

(82) WRIT PETITION NO. 7425 OF 2018

¶574

Ukha s/o Nathu Patil age 53 years, occ. Agril R/o Upparpind, Shirpur Tq Shirpur, Dist Dhule

¶575

Petitioner

¶576

Versus

¶577

01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶578

02 The District Collector, Dhule, Dist. Dhule.

¶579

03 The Sub-Divisional Officer, Shirpur, Tq Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

¶580

04 The Tahsildar Shirpur, Tq. Shirpur Dist. Dhule.

Respondents

{58}

wp425818.odt

Mr. U.B. Bondar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶585

WITH

¶586

(83) WRIT PETITION NO. 8017 OF 2018

¶587

Shubham Bhagwanrao Yadhav Age 24 years, occ Agril r/o Khadka, Tq. Sonpeth Dist. Parbhani Petitioner

¶588

Versus

¶589

01 The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

¶590

02 The District Collector, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani

¶591

03 The Sub-Divisional Officer, Pathari, Tq. Pathari Dist. Parbhani 04 The Tahsildar, Sonpeth Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani Respondents Mr. S.G. Jadhavar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶592

WITH

¶593

(84) WRIT PETITION NO. 8012 OF 2018

¶594

Amol Prakash Tandale age 29 years, occ. Agril. R/o Parali(Vaijainath), Tq. Parali(Vaijainath) Dist. Beed. Petitioner

¶595

Versus

¶596

01 The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary

¶597

{59} wp425818.odt Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 02 The District Collector Parbhani, Tq. & Dist Parbhani 03 The Sub-Divisional Officer, Pathri, Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani 04 The Tahsildar, Sonpeth Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani Respondents Mr. S.G. Jadhavar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents. WITH (85) WRIT PETITION NO. 7997 OF 2018 Ramesh Atmarao Shinde Age 39 years, occ. Agri R/o Vazur (Kh), Tq. Manwat Dist. Parbhani Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 02 The District Collector, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani 03 The Sub-Divisional Officer Sailu, Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani 04 The Tahsildar, Manwat Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani. Respondents Mr. U.L. Momale, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

{60}

wp425818.odt

WITH

(86) WRIIT PETITION NO. 8015 OF 2018

¶602

Gangadhar s/o Kashinath Rajgude Age 45 years, Occ. Business R/o Kawadgaon (Zirpa) Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed Petitioner

¶603

Versus

¶604

01 The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 02 The Collector, Collector Office, Beed,

¶605

03 The Sub Divisional Officer Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon Dist. Beed 04 The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Majalgaon Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. Respondents

¶606

Mr. A.B. Kharosekar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶607

WITH (87) WRIT PETITION NO. 8020 OF 2018

¶608

Kailas Bhuta Sonawane Age 45 years, Occ. Business R/o Vaijnath Tq. Yerandol. Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner

¶609

Versus

¶610

{61} wp425818.odt 01 The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary Revenue and Forest department Mantralaya, Mumbai 02 The Collector, Jalgaon Collector Office, Jalgaon 03 The Sub Divisional Magistrate Yerandol Sub Division Yerandol, Dist. Jalgaon 04 The Tahsildar, Dharangaon Tahasil Office, Tq. Dharangaon, Dist.Jalgaon Respondents Mr. K.B. Borde Patil, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents. WITH (88) WRIT PETITION NO. 7873 OF 2018

¶611

Prabhakar s/o Pundlik Patil Age 39 years, occ. Business R/o House No. 237, At Kudare Post Palaspa, Tq. Panvel Dist. Raigad At Present r/o Itke Corner Parali Vaijnath, Tq. Parali Vaijnath Dist. Beed. Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 02 The Collector, Collector Office, Beed.

¶612

{62} wp425818.odt

¶613

03 The Deputy Collector / sub Divisional Officer Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon Dist. Beed. 04 The Tahsildar Tahsil Office, Majalgaon Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. Respondents Mr. A.B. Kharosekar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents. WITH (89) WRIT PETITION NO. 7868 OF 2018 Govind s/o Shivaji Pathade age 39 years, occ. Business r/o Murud, Tq. Latur Dist. Latur Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya,Mumbai 32. 02 The Collector Collector Office, Beed. 03 The Sub-Divisional Officer, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon Dist. Beed. 04 The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Majalgaon Tq. Majalagaon, Dist. Beed. Respondents Mr. H.P. Jadhav, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S. S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

{63}

wp425818.odt

WITH

(90) WRIT PETITION NO. 7852 OF 2018

¶618

Vilas s/o Bhagwat Shendge Age 40 years, occ. Agri. R/o Barshi, Tq. Barshi Dist. Solapur Petitioner

¶619

Versus

¶620

01 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 02 The Collector, Collector Office, Beed. 03 The Sub-Divisional Officer Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. 04 The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Majalgaon Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. 05 The Police Inspector Police Station Majalgaon Dist. Beed. Respondents Mr. S.V. Jadhavar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶621

WITH (91) WRIT PETITION NO. 7877 OF 2018

¶622

Tatyarao s/o Zumbar Bhargande Age 54 years, Occ. Agri. R/o Kasti (Bk.), Tq. Lohara Dist. Osmanabad Petitioner Versus

¶623

01 The State of Maharashtra

¶624

{64} wp425818.odt

¶625

Through the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra in Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai 32. 02 The Collector, Osmanabad Dist. Osmanabad 03 The Deputy Collector, Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad 04 The Tahsildar, Lohara Dist. Osmanabad 05 The Naib Tahsildar Lohara, Dist. Osmanabad 06 The Circle Officer, Lohara, Tq. Lohara Dist. Osmanabad 07 The Talathi Dastapur, Tq. Lohara Dist. Osmanabad Respondents Mr. S.S. Choudhary, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondents. WITH (92) WRIT PETITION 7576 OF 2018 Jijabhau s/o Madanbhau Mote Occ. Agri. & business r/o Mote Galli, Tq. Georai Dist. Beed. Petitioner Versus 01 The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶626

wp425818.odt

¶627

{65}

¶628

02 Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad Division Aurangabad 03 The Collector, Beed Dist. Beed 04 Sub Divisional Officer Georai, Tq. Georai Dist. Beed 05 The Tahsildar Georai, Tq. Georai Dist. Beed. Respondents Mr. G.K. Thigale, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶629

WITH

¶630

(93) WRIT PETITION NO. 7590 OF 2018

¶631

Kishor s/o Kakasaheb Aher age 30 years, Occ. Agril & Business R/o Umapur, Tq. Georai Dist. Beed. Petitioner

¶632

Versus

¶633

01 The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 02 Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad Division Aurangabad 03 The Collector, Beed Dist. Beed 04 Sub Divisional Officer Georai, Tq. Georai Dist. Beed

¶634

{66}

¶635

wp425818.odt

¶636

05 The Tahsildar Georai, Tq. Georai Dist. Beed. Respondents

¶637

Mr. G.K. Thigale, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶638

WITH (94) WRIT PETITION NO. 7589 OF 2018

¶639

Ram s/o Sarjerao Mote Age 30 years, Occ. Agril & Business R/o Mote Galli, Tq. Georai Dist. Beed. Petitioner

¶640

Versus

¶641

01 The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶642

¶643

Mr. G.K. Thigale, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶644

WITH

¶645

(95) WRIT PETITION NO. 7588 OF 2018

¶646

Shaikh Anis s/o Shaikh Lala

¶647

{67} wp425818.odt

¶648

age 45 years, occ. Agri. & Business r/o Georai, Tq. Georai Dist. Beed.

¶649

Petitioner

¶650

Versus

¶651

01 The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶652

¶653

WITH

¶654

(96) WRIT PETITION NO. 7587 OF 2018

¶655

Rajabhau s/o Gowardhan Pawar age 43 years, occ. Agril & Business r/o Georai, Tq. Georai Dist. Beed. Petitioner

¶656

Versus

¶657

01 The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai

wp425818.odt

{68}

WITH

(97) WRIT PETITION NO. 7586 OF 2018

¶663

Swapnil s/o Jaggannath Maske age 28 years, occ. Agri. & Business r/o Shivaji Nagar Georai, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed. Petitioner

Versus

{69}

wp425818.odt

05 The Tahsildar

Georai, Tq. Georai Dist. Beed. Respondents

¶670

Mr. G.K. Thigale, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶671

CORAM : R.M.BORDE AND

¶672

A.M.DHAVALE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 16th July, 2018 PRONOUNCED ON: 02nd August, 2018.

¶673

JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.) :

¶674

1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for respective parties.

¶675

2 In this group of petitions, petitioners are objecting to the orders passed by the Tahsildar or any other revenue officials directing imposition of penalty for unauthorised transportation or excess quantity of minor mineral or transportation of minor mineral without valid permit or transportation of minor mineral on the basis of invalid and fabricated permit. Apart from this, the orders, directing imposition of penalty in respect of vehicles, is also a matter of challenge.

¶676

3 Primary objection of the petitioners, in this petition, is in respect of applicability of Section 48(7) and (8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short “Code of 1966).

¶677

4 Relying upon the judgment in the matter of Vijay Dashrath Shirbhate Vs. State of Maharashtra and another , 2010(1) All M.R. 842, it is contended that since the minor mineral i.e. sand is excavated with lawful authority, provisions of Section

¶678

wp425818.odt

¶679

{70}

¶680

48(7) are not attracted. Petitioners contend that it is not permissible for the Tahsildar or any other revenue official to impose penalty in respect of minor mineral which has been excavated out of an area/plot leased out validly by the State Government. According to the petitioners, they have not excavated unauthorisedly sand from an area forming part of the property vested in the State. Petitioners contend that since the source of minor mineral is an area leased out by the State under the policy framed in that regard, provisions of Code of 1966 would not be attracted and if, at all, the act alleged amounts to contravention of any provision, that would fall within the ambit of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Section 48(1) of the Code of 1966 provides that the right to all minerals at whatever place found, whether on surface or underground, including all derelict or working mines and quarries, old dumps, pits, fields, bandhas, nalas, creeks, river beds and such other places, is and is hereby declared to be expressly reserved and shall vest in the State Government which shall have all powers necessary for the proper enjoyment of such rights. It is, thus, clear that the right to all minerals at whatever place found vests in the State Government. It is for the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 48 to assign to any person its right over any minerals, mines or quarries, and in case for proper enjoyment of such right, it is necessary that all or any of the powers specified in sub-sections (1) and (2) should be exercised, the Collector may, by an order in writing, subject to such conditions as reservations as he may specify, delegate such powers to the person to whom the right has been assigned.

¶681

Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 48 of the Code of

wp425818.odt

{71}

1966 are relevant for consideration, which are reproduced herein

¶686

below :

¶687

S.48. Government title to mines and minerals :

¶688

(7) Any person who without lawful authority extracts, removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes of any mineral from working or derelict mines, quarries, old dumps, fields, bandhas (whether on the plea of repairing or constructions of bund of the fields or an any other plea), nallas, creeks, riverbeds, or such other places wherever situate, the right to which vests in, and has not been assigned by the State Government, shall, without prejudice to any other mode of action that may be taken against him, be liable , [on the order in writing of the Collector, or any revenue officer not below the rank of Tahsildar authorised by the collector in this behalf to pay penalty on of an amount [upto five times] the market value of the minerals so extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up or disposed of, as the case may be :

¶689

[* * *]

¶690

[(8) (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (7), the Collector or any revenue officer not below the rank of Tahsildar authorised by the Collector in this behalf, may seize and confiscate any mineral extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up or disposed of form any mine, quarry or other place referred to in subsection (7), the right to which vests in, and has not been assigned by the State Government, and may also seize and confiscate any machinery and equipment used for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals and any means of

¶691

wp425818.odt

¶692

{72}

¶693

transport deployed to transport the same.

¶694

(2) Such machinery or equipment or means of transport, used for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals or transportation thereof, which is seized under sub-section (1), shall be produced before the Collector or such other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector authorised by the Collector in this behalf, within a period of forty-eight hours of such seizure, who may release such seized machinery, equipment or means of transport on payment by the owner thereof of such penalty as may be prescribed and also on furnishing personal bond of an amount not exceeding the market value of the seized machinery, equipment or means of transport shall not be used in future for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals and transportation of the same.

¶695

6 Petitioners contend that it is only when any person, without lawful authority, extracts, removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes of any mineral, the State Government is empowered to take action and direct imposition of penalty. Subsection (8) authorises the Collector or any revenue officer not below the rank of Tahsildar, authorised by the Collector, to seize and confiscate any mineral extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up or disposed of from any mine and any means of transport deployed to transport the same. Sub-section (8)(2) of Section 48 requires that such a machinery or equipment or means of transport which has been seized shall be produced before the Collector or such other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector authorised by the Collector in this behalf, within a period of forty-eight hours of such seizure, who may release such seized

¶696

{73}

¶697

wp425818.odt

¶698

machinery, equipment or means of transport on payment by the owner thereof of such penalty as may be prescribed and also on furnishing personal bond of an amount not exceeding the market value of the seized machinery, equipment or means of transport with an undertaking that seized machinery, equipment or means of transport shall not be used in future for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals and transportation of the same.

¶699

7 It is contended that sub-sections 8(1) and (2) of Section 48 of the Code of 1966 are referable to sub-section (7) of section 48. It is only when the minor minerals are collected and transported without any lawful authority, the provisions in respect of penalty for the minor minerals or the penalty for vehicle is leviable. Petitioners contend that in all the matters before the Court, the source of extraction of minor mineral is a plot or an area leased out by the State Government and as such, provisions of sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 48 are not at all attracted. It is neither permissible for the revenue officer to impose penalty in respect of minor minerals nor the transporters or owners of the vehicle can be directed to pay penalty in respect of vehicle or to execute a bond and tender an undertaking nor the vehicle can be seized and confiscated by taking recourse to the provisions of Code of 1966.

¶700

8 Our attention is drawn to the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short “Act of 1957”). The object of the Act is to provide for the development and regulation of mines and minerals under the control of the Union.

¶701

{74}

¶702

wp425818.odt

¶703

Section 3(a) of the Act of 1957 defines “Minerals”, which includes all minerals except mineral oils whereas “minor minerals” has been defined in sub-section (e) to mean building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes and any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette declare to be a minor mineral.

¶704

9 Section 14 of the Act of 1957 provides that the provisions of Sections 5 to 13 (inclusive) shall not apply to quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals. Whereas Section 15 provides that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith.

¶705

10 The State Government is also invested with the powers to make rules in respect of matters provided under sub-section (1A) (a) of Section 15 of the Act of 1957. Rule making power of the State includes providing for the rules in respect of the person by whom and the manner in which, applications for quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions, may be made and the fees to be paid therefor.

¶706

11 The questions as regards the legislative competence of the State to frame rules relating to minor minerals was a matter of consideration before this Court in Hari Constructions Vs. State

¶707

{75}

¶708

wp425818.odt

¶709

of Maharashtra and others , 1995(1) M.L.R. 679. The Division Bench of this Court has observed that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 takes over the regulation of mines and development of minerals to the Union to the extent provided. It deals with minor minerals separately from other minerals. The subject of legislation in respect of minor minerals and covered by the Act of 1957, but to a specified extent and to that, extent the powers of State Legislature are wanting. The object of the MLR Code is revenue administration. The object of the said Act is to assess, charge, and collect revenue which includes penalty on account of illegal extraction of minerals vested in the State Government. Under section 48(1) where minerals vest in the State Government, they are entitled to proper enjoyment including the power of sale or disposal of the said minerals and if the said minerals are unauthorisedly removed, then the Collector, under section 48, is required to charge penalty which is in the nature of damages on account of loss suffered by the Government for unauthorised extraction of minerals. Under Section 2(19) of the Code of 1966, “land revenue” means all sums and payments, any cess or rate authorised by the State Government and includes premium, rent or any other payment provided under any act, contract or deed on account of any land. Revenue administration also includes rights of a Collector to impose penalty for unauthorised excavation of minerals which have vested in the Government. The Court has further held that in fact the land revenue is the State subject under List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and there is no merit in the contention that the State Legislature has no competence to enact the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and particularly Section 48(7) of the Code of

¶710

{76}

¶711

wp425818.odt

¶712

The two acts operate in different and distinct spheres and that Section 48(7) of the Code of 1966 is not ultra vires the Constitution.

¶713

12 In the matter of Vijay Dashrath Shirbhate (cited supra) the Division Bench of this Court, in paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of the judgment, observed thus :

¶714

12 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is dealing with lands and land revenue and under section 20, all lands which are not privately owned, vest in State Government. Under Section 48(1), the right to all minerals wherever found, vests in State Government. Section 48(7) deals with the cases where said right of State Government is violated. The said provision clearly shows that its application depends on the place where any mineral is found and it operates only when such place is not leased or assigned for mining of that mineral by State Government. The provision therefore, clearly show that it gets attracted only when the ownership rights of State Government over such mineral are violated. The violation of ownership rights is not regulated by the MM Act as it is integral part and parcel of right of revenue administration. It is to be noted recovery contemplated therein is without prejudice to any other liability incurred by wrongdoer because of his illegal act and hence, his liability under section 21 of MM Act is not affected in any manner.

¶715

13 The person who excavate with lawful authority is not subjected to said section 48(7). Also for excavation of mineral royalty from a place which has been assigned therefor by the State Government, the said provision is not applicable. It therefore, clearly shows that when such action is in derogation of the

¶716

wp425818.odt

¶717

{77}

¶718

ownership rights of State Government over such minerals, the State Government is competent to recover the penalty as stipulated in it. The penalty stipulated is three times the market value of the mineral extracted or Rs.1000/-, if thrice the value of extracted so mineral is less than Rs. One Thousand. It is also to be noticed that action thereunder is without prejudice to any other mode of legal action, that may be taken against him. Thus said provision itself contemplates that any other mode of action, if possible against such wrongdoer, is not affected thereby. It also does not contemplate any prosecution before levying such penalty.

¶719

13 It is further recorded in the judgment by the Division Bench that the provisions of Minor Minerals Act clearly show that the action thereunder is for violating the provisions of the said Act i.e. for breach of regulatory measures enacted by the Parliament. Those regulatory measures do not in any way derogate from ownership of either land or minerals of State Government, which are subject matter of or a consideration under Land Revenue Code, particularly Section 48 thereof.

¶720

14 It is, thus, clear that in view of Section 48(1) of the Code of 1966, right to all minerals at whatever place those are found vests in the State Government. Any act derogatory to ownership rights of the State over the minor minerals would be a matter falling within the provisions of Code of 1966.

¶721

15 Petitioners contend that since the source of minor minerals is an area leased out by the State to the respective contractors, their cases, even assuming that there is violation, do

¶722

{78}

¶723

wp425818.odt

¶724

not fall within the ambit of Code of 1966. The contention is devoid of substance for several reasons. The State Government has framed, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 15 of the Act of 1957, rules for regulating minor minerals those are called Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 (for short “Rules of 2013”). Rule 66(11) provides that if any excess quantity over permitted limit is found to be removed the material shall be confiscated and permit holder shall be liable for punishment under the provisions of the Code of 1966 and Act of 1957.

¶725

16 Section 328 of the Code of 1966 empowers the State Government to make rules not inconsistent with the provisions of this Code for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Code. Sub-section 328 (2) (xix) authorises to make rules under Sub-section (8) of Section 48 prescribing the penalty to be paid by the owner for release of the machinery, equipment or means of transport used for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals and under Sub-section (9) of Section 48, the rules to regulate the extraction and removal of minor minerals. In exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (9) of Section 48, Sub-section (1) and clause (xix) of Sub-section (2) of Section 328 read with Subsections (2) of Section 329 of the Code of 1966, the Governor of Maharashtra has framed rules further to amend Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) Rules, 1968. After Rule 8 of the Rules, Rule 9 is added providing for penalty under Sub-section (8) of Section 48 and personal bond. It is provided that the machinery and equipment or means of

¶726

{79}

¶727

wp425818.odt

¶728

transport, used for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals or transportation thereof, which is seized under Sub-section (1), shall be produced before the Collector or such other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector authorised by the Collector in this behalf, within a period of forty-eight hours of such seizure, who may release such seized machinery, equipment or means of transport on payment by the owner thereof of such penalty as may be prescribed and also on furnishing personal bond of an amount not exceeding the market value of the seized machinery, equipment or means of transport, stating therein that such seized machinery, equipment or means of transport shall not be used in future for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals and transportation of the same. Under the provisions of Sub-section (8) of Section 48, the machinery and equipment may be released only after payment of penalty as mentioned in the table and after submission of personal bond as stipulated in Section 48(8) of the Code of 1966. the Table provided under the Rules specify the penalty per vehicle/equipment. Sub-rule (2) provides for execution of the personal bond recording the details as specified in the Rules. The petitioners have objected to the imposition of penalty in respect of the vehicle used for transportation of the minor minerals. It is contended that rule framed for imposition of penalty amounts to double jeopardy. It is contended that sub-section (8)(2) makes provision for execution of the bond of an amount not exceeding the market value of the seized machinery, equipment or means of transport as well as tendering of an undertaking to the effect that in future the machinery, equipment or means of transport shall

¶729

{80}

¶730

wp425818.odt

¶731

not be used for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up and transportation of the same. It is contended, on the face of such penalty as provided under Subsection (8)(2) of Section 48, the imposition of penalty in respect of vehicle would not be permissible.

¶732

17 On reading Sub-section (8)(1) of Section 48 of the Code, it is noticed that the Collector or any revenue officer, not below the rank of Tahsildar, authorised by the Collector in this behalf, may seize and confiscate any mineral extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up or disposed of from any mine, quarry or other place referred to in Sub-section (7) of Section 48, the right to which vests in, and has not been assigned by the State Government and may also seize and confiscate any machinery and equipment used for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals and any means of transport deployed to transport the same. Sub-section (2) obligates the authority to produce the vehicle before the Collector or such other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector within forty-eight hours, who may release the machinery on payment by the owner, such penalty as may be prescribed and also on executing personal bond specified in Sub-section (2). The penalty in respect of vehicle has not been provided in Section 48(8) (2), but as a precondition for release of the vehicle, a personal bond and undertaking of the owner is required. Whereas, rule 9 provides for penalty in respect of machinery and equipment used for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal of minor minerals and the means of transportation. The imposition of penalty in respect of vehicle and

¶733

{81}

¶734

wp425818.odt

¶735

equipment is distinct than the condition imposed in respect of release of seized machinery or vehicle or equipment on production of the same before the Deputy Collector / Sub-Divisional Officer. The condition in respect of execution of a bond as a precondition for release of the vehicle cannot be equated with the imposition of penalty for violation, as provided under Rule 9. It cannot be contended that the rule, that has been framed, is beyond the rule making power of the State Government or that the same is contrary to any substantive provision of law. It is not questioned on the ground of competence of the State. The petitioners, though contend that the rule is unreasonable and as such is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, it has not been substantiated as to how the same can be branded as unreasonable. The rule has been framed directing imposition of penalty for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or disposal and transportation of minor minerals, to deter the violators of law from continuing with the illegal activities. It is noticed that there is rampant illegal activities in excavation, removal, collection, replacement, picking up and disposal and transportation of the sand and taking note thereof the State appears to have amended the rules prescribing for stringent penalty. Merely because the penalties are stringent cannot be a reason to brand it as unreasonable or illegal. The argument advanced by the Counsel appearing for the petitioners objecting to the imposition of penalty for vehicle or equipment or machinery which is within the framework of rules, is unsustainable. The challenge raised to the validity of the rules directing imposition of penalty for vehicle and the machinery used for unauthorised extraction of minor minerals, is devoid of substance and as such deserves to be turned down.

¶736

wp425818.odt

¶737

{82}

¶738

18 The petitioners contend that since the removal or excavation of sand is authorised i.e. from an area where the sand is excavated has been validly leased to the contractor, the transportation of the said minor mineral from the aforesaid source cannot be said to be violative of provisions of Section 48 of the Code of 1966. It is only when the excavation or transportation of minor minerals is conducted unauthorisedly i.e. within the area which vests in the State Government, same can be branded as unauthorised and the provisions of Code of 1966 can be invoked. The contention raised by the petitioners appears to be devoid of substance.

¶739

19 As has been recorded above, in the event of transportation of sand in excess of the quantity over permitted limit is liable for punishment under the provisions of Code of 1966 and Act of 1957 as well as Rule 66(11) of the Rules of 2013.

¶740

20 Apart from this, the State Government has framed policy for regulating the excavation and transportation of sand which has been declared under Government Resolution dated 03.01.2018. It is prescribed that the Government Resolution has been issued in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petitions No. 19628-19629 of 2009, decided on 27.02.2012 as well as the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in PILs No. 1/2011, 116/2012, 202/2013, 79/2014 and 82/2014. Clause 11(1)(v) of the Government Resolution dated 03.01.2018 provides that extraction and transportation of sand shall be carried between 6'O clock in the morning till 6'O clock in

¶741

{83} wp425818.odt

¶742

the evening. The extraction and transportation of sand beyond the aforesaid period shall be considered to be illegal and appropriate action would be taken. Clause 12 of the Government Resolution declares that the extraction of minor minerals in the riverbed shall be done manually and use of machinery like pokland, JCB is prohibited. Clause 13(c) provides that the transporter of minor mineral/sand shall possess a valid pass bearing bar code and if the transporter is found transporting sand without valid pass bearing bar code or if the period provided under the pass has expired, the excavation and transportation of sand would be deemed to be illegal and penal provisions of Section 48(7) and (8) Code of 1966 would be invoked and appropriate action would be taken.

¶743

21 The petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Abdul Wasif Abdul Latif Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2017(2) Mh.L.J. 356. In the reported matter, the truck of the petitioner carrying sand was seized by the respondents under Section 48(8) and he was directed to pay penalty for not covering the sand with tarpaulin or any other suitable mechanism. It was contended that provisions of Sections 47 and 48 can be invoked only if a person extracts, removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes of any mineral without lawful authority. It was contended that since the petitioner had not, without lawful authority, done anything for which action could have been initiated against petitioner under Sections 48(7) and (8) of the Code, the order of seizure as well as order imposing penalty is liable to be set aside. The contention was accepted by the Division Bench and it was found that the case of the petitioner

¶744

{84}

¶745

wp425818.odt

¶746

therein does not fall within the ambit of Sections 47 and 48 of the Code of 1966. The breach, that was alleged, was not referable to Section 47, or not referable to any of the rules or policy framed under the provisions of Code of 1966. The judgment cited is distinguishable and no parallel can be drawn with the act of the petitioner.

¶747

22 In the instant petitions, in certain matters though the transporters possess pass, the transportation of sand is in excess of the permit or in certain cases the period prescribed in the pass has either expired or that the pass itself is deficient in necessary particulars and as such cannot be deemed as valid. The conditions as provided under the Government policy permit transportation of sand between the period prescribed under the policy and with valid pass. If any of the conditions specified in the Government Resolution is breached, the excavation or transportation would be deemed to be illegal and calls for appropriate penalty under the Code of 1966. The petitioners cannot be permitted to contend that since the source of sand or minor minerals is referable to issuance of license or authorisation by the Government in favour of another contractor, the transportation, even if deficient or illegal on account of violation of certain conditions in the Government policy or the rules, shall be considered to be outside the provisions of Code of 1966, is not acceptable.

¶748

23 As has been recorded above, the provisions of Code of 1966 provide for revenue administration. The revenue administration, within its fold, brings collection of fees, cess, all

¶749

{85}

¶750

wp425818.odt

¶751

types of payments as well as premium, rent or penalties. Since the petitioners are found to have violated the provisions of Rules of 2013 or the policy directions contained in Government Resolution dated 03.01.2018, they are liable to be proceeded with and the provisions of Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 48 of the Code of 1966 can be invoked. Once it is noticed that action at the end of the petitioners is illegal, or the act is without lawful authority, they can be proceeded with under Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 48 of the Code of 1966. Since the violation attributable to the petitioners is branded illegal under the policy framed by the State, they cannot be permitted to contend that provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the Code of 1966 are not attracted and no penalty can be imposed.

¶752

24 Another argument, that has been canvassed is of nonobservance of principles of natural justice. It is contended that petitioners have not been extended an opportunity of hearing before imposing penalty. In certain matters, as in Writ Petition no. 4258/2018, notice issued by the Tahsildar directing the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty shall not be recovered from him on account of violation of conditions in respect of use of machinery for excavation of sand, is a matter of challenge. It is open for the petitioners to reply the notice and permit the Tahsildar to pass appropriate orders. If, at all, any order is passed by the Tahsildar directing imposition of penalty, the said order is liable to be challenged before superior revenue officer in an appeal by invoking appellate powers under the Code of 1966.

¶753

25 It would be open for the petitioners to question the

¶754

{86}

¶755

wp425818.odt

¶756

adverse orders passed by the revenue officials directing imposition of penalty. It would also be necessary for the revenue officers to produce the seized or confiscated machinery or vehicle used for illegal transportation or excavation of minor minerals before the Deputy Collector/Sub Divisional Officer within forty-eight hours. If the vehicle or machinery has not been produced, same shall be produced before the Collector or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector authorised by the Collector, in that behalf, within forty-eight hours from the date of this order. On production of the vehicle, the concerned Deputy Collector or any officer shall observe the provisions of Section 48(8) (2) of the Code of 1966 and pass appropriate orders forthwith. The Revenue officers, before directing imposition of penalty other than in respect of minor minerals or for unauthorised use of vehicle for transportation of minor minerals or excavation of the same, are duty bound to extend an opportunity of hearing to the person who has committed violation; and to the transporter of the minor minerals or to the owner of the machinery. The revenue officials are bound to observe principles of natural justice before passing adverse orders against the transporter or owners of the machinery. The adverse orders passed by the revenue officials are liable to be challenged before the appellate forum provided under the Code of 1966 and it would be open for the petitioners or aggrieved parties to raise objection to the order, as permissible in law.

¶757

26 For the reasons recorded above, challenge raised to the provisions of Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Mineral) Rule 1968, published in the notification dated 12.01.2018 stands rejected. The petitioners,

¶758

{87}

¶759

wp425818.odt

¶760

against whom an order in respect of imposition of penalty for the vehicle is levied, are liable to pay the amount as specified in the order subject to the availability of appellate remedies and the orders, those may be passed by the appellate forum.

¶761

27 As has been recorded above, if the vehicles in question have not been produced before the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Deputy Collector within contemplation of Section 48(8)(2) of the Code of 1966, such vehicles or machinery shall be produced within forty-eight hours from the date of this order and the Deputy Collector / Sub-Divisional Officer, on receipt of application by the owner of the vehicle or the machinery, after extending an opportunity of hearing to the concern, shall pass appropriate orders directing release of the vehicle, subject to imposition of penalty and fulfillment of other conditions provided under law, expeditiously and in any case, within a period of three days from the date of the application. Challenge raised to notices/order impugned in the petitions stands rejected.

¶762

28 Writ petitions are disposed of. Rule discharged accordingly. No costs.

¶763

Pending Civil Applications, if any, do not survive and stand disposed of.

¶764

(A.M.DHAVALE) (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE JUDGE

¶765

adb

Babarao Sheshrao Shep v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babarao Sheshrao Shep v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohamad Azeemuddim Mohamad Hamiduddim Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mayuri Mahavir Varwante Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Omkar Santosh Kachkalwad through Father Santosh Gangadharrao Kachkalwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

P Naga Bhushanam Mariah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dhannu Vitthal Phapal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shriram Tukaram Kendre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others