Disposed

Mohmmad Muntjib Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC23 Jan 2020WP/14910/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No. 14910 of 2019, the High Court held that the autorecovery official (Talathi) lacked jurisdiction to seize the petitioner's vehicle under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The Court directed the release of the vehicle upon deposit of Rs. 1,00,000.

What did the court decide?

Release of seized vehicle subject to Rs. 1,00,000 deposit and bond execution.

Mohmmad Muntjib Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1 62-WP14910-19.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 14910 OF 2019

¶4

Mohmmad Muntjib Khan

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Rakesh N. Jain, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶10

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

¶11

 DATED : 23rd JANUARY, 2020.

¶12

PER COURT:-

¶13

. The vehicle of the petitioner is seized for illegal transportation of

¶14

sand. The fine and penalty is also imposed upon the petitioner.

¶15

2. As far as fine and penalty is concerned, the petitioner may avail the remedy of appeal.

¶16

3. The seizure of the vehicle is on 18.05.2019. The said seizure appears to be at the behest of the Talathi. At the relevant time the Talathi did not possess power and authority to seize the vehicle under

¶17

Section 48 (7) (8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

¶18

4. Considering the above, we pass the following order.

¶19

1 of 2

¶20

2 62-WP14910-19.odt

¶21

5.The respondents shall release the vehicle seized from the
petitioner under panchanama dated 18.05.2019 after verifying the
genuineness of documents and confirming the ownership of the
petitioner. The respondents shall get executed a bond from the
petitioner to their satisfaction. The petitioner shall deposit an amount
of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with the respondents. The
said deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of either of the parties and subject to the decision that
would be taken by the appellate authority, in case, the petitioner files
appeal.

¶22

6. In case, the petitioner does not file appeal within a period of 30 days from today, the respondents are entitled to recover the entire amount, so also repossess the vehicle.

¶23

7. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of. No

¶24

costs.

¶25

( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI )( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

P.S.B.

¶27

2 of 2

Mohmmad Muntjib Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohmmad Muntjib Khan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shubhangi Bhausaheb Rahinj Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santaram Chandrabhan Surase and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hanuman Namdevrao Jakate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amrish Ishwarlal Jain Vs Central Vigilance Commission through Section Officer and Others

Satyendra Shivram Jindam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shitalnath Zumbarlal Sonpethekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others