Prayan S/O Kailasrao Shelke v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Revenue And Forest Department, Mumbai And ORS

wp5405.21+3.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5405/2021 Prayan Kailasrao Shelke...Versus...State of Maharashtra and ors AND WRIT PETITION NO. 5406/2021 Parvej Jibrail Khan Pathan...Versus...State of Maharashtra and ors and WRIT PETITION NO. 5407/2021 Saurabhsingh Thamendrasingh Chouhan...Versus...State of Maharashtra and ors and WRIT PETITION NO. 5408/2021 Gaurav Rajesh Chourasiya...Versus...State of Maharashtra and ors - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ Mr. A.R.Ingole, Advocate for petitioners Ms. T.Khan, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 20/12/2021 Heard Mr. Ingole, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Khan, learned AGP for respondents. In all these petitions, a composite order has been passed by the Tahsildar, exercising powers under Section 48(7) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, imposing penalty as well as under Section 48(8)(2) of the said Code imposing penalty for the use of the vehicles. Mr. Ingole, learned counsel for the petitioners upon instructions does not press these petitions in so far as imposition of penalty/fine under Section 48(7) of the MLR

wp5405.21+3.odt Code is concerned.

Learned AGP fairly concedes that the impugned orders in so far as they indicate the exercise of powers by the Tahsildar under Section 48(8)(2) of the MLR Code, the same would clearly be without jurisdiction, in view of which, the impugned order in so far as they indicate exercise of jurisdiction by the Tahsildar under Section 48(8)(2) of the MLR Code, is quashed and set aside and the matters are remanded back to the Respondent No.3, who will issue a fresh notices to the petitioners in the matter of imposing penalty under Section 48(8)(2) of the MLR Code and after granting an opportunity of being heard, pass necessary and appropriate order. Since Mr. Ingole, learned counsel for the petitioners, upon instructions states that the vehicles would be produced before the Respondent No. 3 as and when required by the Respondent No.

3 by a notice in writing duly served upon the petitioners, the vehicles be released in the custody of the respective petitioners upon their furnishing an undertaking to the above effect and the bond equal to the value of the vehicles before the SDO. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE Digitally sign byRAJESH VASANTRAO JALIT Location:

rvjalit