Bombay High CourtWP/6714/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Pankaj Ashok Rohankar And Others v. State Of Maharashtra Through Tahsildar And Another

2016-11-29Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi2 pages

2911wp6714.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.6714/2016 Pankaj Ashok Rohankar and others ...Versus...

State of Maharashtra, through Tahsildar Anjangaon Surji, Tah. Anjangaon Surji, Distt. Amravati and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for petitioners Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. G.P. for respondents CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 29.11.2016 By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the Tahsildar, dated 28.9.2016 under Section 48 (7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, asking the petitioners to pay penalty of Rs.3,70,400/-.

According to the petitioners, the petitioners had a licence to excavate and transport the sand and the Tahsildar was not justified in passing the order, imposing penalty. Shri Fulzele, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents raises a preliminary objection to the tenability of the writ petition. It is stated that instead of filing the statutory appeal under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code before the Sub Divisional

2911wp6714.16.odt Officer, wherein a grievance could be made by the petitioners about the order of the Tahsildar, the petitioners have rushed to this Court.

We uphold the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents and decline to entertain the writ petition. The petitioners are free to challenge the order of the Tahsildar before the Appellate Authority, if so desired, in accordance with law. Order accordingly. No costs. The points raised in the petition are kept open.

JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar