MODERN BUILDERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Kaplan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deopoojary, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondents.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a Partnership Firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and it has its office in Akola City. The petitioner-Firm carries on business of construction of buildings, roads and other engineering works. Some time in the year 1981 -82, the petitioner-Firm was allotted work of construction of a Soot Girni, namely Pain ganga Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd. , at sakharkherda in Buldana district. For the said construction work, material like mortar in the nature of sand, dubber etc. , was required and this being minor minerals, the petitioner had obtained permission from the Tahsildar and paid requisite royalty on the quantity of minor minerals lifted by the petitioner.

(3.) THE construction work of the soot Girni was completed in the year 1982. However, some time in the year 1984, a revenue Case bearing No. MNL/37/11/1984-85 of Sakharkherda was suo motu re-opened by the respondent no. 2 and the petitioner-Firm was called upon to explain why penalty should not be imposed under Section 48 (7) of the maharashtra Land Revenue Code, for extracting the sand and dubber illegally. The sub-Divisional Officer, Mehekar, without holding any proper enquiry, held that the petitioner-Firm extracted 500 brass of sand and 300 brass of stone/dubber and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,96,505-00, which is three times the market value of the material alleged to have been illegally extracted by the petitioner -Firm. The said order was passed on 20th november, 1984. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said Order before the resident Deputy Collector, Buldana, who by order, dated 15th April, 1986, rejected the appeal. The petitioner filed an application for review of the order of Resident Deputy collector, and the Resident Deputy Collector, vide Order, dated 11th November, 1986, rejected the Review Application and confirmed the earlier orders. 'the petitioner thereafter challenged the order of Resident deputy Collector before the Divisional commissioner, Amravati, in appeal, who also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order, dated 31st October, 1987. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this order, filed a Revision before the State Government, which was dismissed by the State Government. The order of Sub-Divisional Officer, dated 20th november, 1984, was finally confirmed and, therefore, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated through Tahsildar, Akola, who issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 174 of maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above referred orders, filed the present writ petition, wherein the very action of the respondent-State and the Revenue Officers is challenged being ultra vires the Constitution of India.