Bombay High CourtWP/9707/2024disposed off

Popat Bapu Narbat v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And ORS

2024-07-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rajesh S. Patil , Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.S. Chandurkar4 pages

1/4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Digitally signed by KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Date:

2024.07.20 10:38:13 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 9702 OF 2024 Sagar Mahadev Madane ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

..... Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9703 OF 2024 Ramchandra Vitthal Didwagh ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

..... Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9705 OF 2024 Maruti Gangaram Gorad & Anr.

..... Petitioners

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

..... Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9707 OF 2024 Popat Bapu Narbat ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

..... Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9708 OF 2024 Jalinder Kisan Kale ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

..... Respondents ALONGWITH

2/4 WRIT PETITION NO. 9710 OF 2024 Nilesh Pandurang Sawant ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

..... Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9713 OF 2024 Amol Vishnu Raskar ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

..... Respondents Mr. Vivek V. Salunke for the Petitioners in all writ petitions. Mr.Siddheshwar B. Kalel, A.G.P. for the State in all writ petitions. CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ DATE : 19th JULY, 2024 P.C. :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

The grievance raised in all these writ petitions is against the action initiated by the 4th respondent - Tahsildar in seizing and confiscating the vehicle of each petitioner on the premise that minor minerals were being transported therein in a manner

3/4 contrary to Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. It is common ground that the initial order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer has been subsequently set aside by the Collector on 16th May, 2024 in appeals preferred under Section 247 of the Code. The proceedings have been remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry.

3.

In the light of the aforesaid, the interest of justice would be served by directing each petitioner to furnish a bond before the Nayab Tahsildar stating therein that the vehicle would be produced as and when required during the course of the proceedings.

4.

Accordingly, the following order is passed :- (a) On each petitioner executing a bond to the aforesaid effect and submitting the same before the Tahsildar - respondent no.4, the vehicle of each petitioner shall be released. The proceedings that have been remanded, shall be decided on their own

4/4 merits and in accordance with law.

5.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs. [ RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]