Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Neha Agre, filed a criminal writ petition seeking release of her vehicle (MH20AK7558) which was seized while carrying sand one brass in excess of the permitted weight. The Naib Tahsildar, Tumsar, seized the vehicle on 2.11.2017 under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and the Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer confirmed the seizure and confiscation, directing payment of Rs.2,400/- as royalty for six brass of sand and Rs.60,000/- as penalty for unauthorised transportation. The petitioner challenged these orders, arguing that the seizure and confiscation were without authority as there was no prior adjudication of unauthorised extraction under Section 48(7). The court agreed, holding that the power under Section 48(8) can only be exercised after a finding of unauthorised extraction under Section 48(7). The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to release the vehicle upon payment of the royalty and penalty amounts, subject to the petitioner furnishing an undertaking not to use the vehicle for illegal transportation and to produce it if required.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Seizure and Confiscation - Section 48(8) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Vehicle carrying sand in excess of permitted weight - Seizure by Naib Tahsildar without prior adjudication of unauthorised extraction - Held that the power under Section 48(8) can be exercised only after a finding of unauthorised extraction under Section 48(7); impugned orders set aside and vehicle directed to be released on payment of royalty and penalty (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the seizure and confiscation of a vehicle carrying sand in excess of permitted weight under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is valid without prior adjudication of unauthorised extraction.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders dated 2.11.2017 and 24.11.2017, and directed the respondents to release the vehicle upon payment of Rs.2,400/- as royalty and Rs.60,000/- as penalty, subject to the petitioner furnishing an undertaking not to use the vehicle for illegal transportation and to produce it if required.
Law Points
- Seizure and confiscation under Section 48(8) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966 requires prior adjudication of unauthorised extraction
- Tahsildar cannot impose penalty without proper proceedings
- vehicle owner entitled to release on payment of royalty and penalty.
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (12) 109
Criminal Writ Petition No.1105 of 2017
R.K.Deshpande, M.G.Giratkar
Mr.S.P.Bhandarkar for Petitioner, Mr.S.S.Doifode A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1,2,5,6,7, Mr.N.B.Bargat for Respondent No.3
State of Maharashtra, The Collector, Nilesh Gaund, M/s.S.R.Traders, SubDivisional Magistrate, Senior Police Officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Taluka Magistrate & Tahsildar, SubDivisional Officer and Magistrate, Gajendra Balpande, Smt.Shilpa K. Sonale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking release of seized vehicle and challenging orders of seizure and confiscation.
Remedy Sought
Direction to respondents to release vehicle bearing Registration No.MH20AK7558 and quashment of orders dated 2.11.2017 and 24.11.2017.
Filing Reason
Vehicle seized for carrying sand one brass in excess of permitted weight; petitioner challenged seizure as without authority under Section 48(8) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Previous Decisions
Order dated 2.11.2017 by Tahsildar, Tumsar and order dated 24.11.2017 by SubDivisional Officer, Tumsar confirming seizure and confiscation, directing payment of Rs.2,400/- royalty and Rs.60,000/- penalty.
Issues
Whether seizure and confiscation under Section 48(8) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is valid without prior adjudication of unauthorised extraction under Section 48(7)?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that seizure and confiscation by Naib Tahsildar was without authority as there was no prior adjudication of unauthorised extraction under Section 48(7).
Respondents argued that the seizure was valid under Section 48(8) for carrying sand in excess of permitted weight.
Ratio Decidendi
The power under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 to seize and confiscate a vehicle can be exercised only after a finding of unauthorised extraction under Section 48(7); without such prior adjudication, the seizure is without authority.
Judgment Excerpts
The action of seizure and confiscation of vehicle along with sand and recovery of royalty and penalty as contemplated by the impugned order cannot be justified under the provisions of subsection (7) and subsection (8) of Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
The power under subsection (8) of Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code can be exercised only after a finding of unauthorised extraction under subsection (7) of Section 48.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.1105 of 2017 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the seizure of her vehicle and the orders of the Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer. The court heard the matter on 19th December 2017 and delivered judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: 48(7), 48(8)
