KHANDUJA BROTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, an order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, directing the confiscation of 2000 bags of the charcoal is called in question. The said order was confirmed by the appellate authority, i.e., the Resident Deputy Collector as also the revisional authority, i.e., the Additional Commissioner.

(2.) A Talathi of Balajinagar found that there was a coal kiln being operated in the field of one Timaji Jagtap, being survey No. 23 of village Yelabara. This was on 14.9.1989. He did not waste any time and proceeded to stop that kiln. He also executed a panchanama and gave the kiln and the charcoal that was being prepared in the same, in custody of one Rudrashankar Mataprasad Shrivastava who was allegedly a representative of one Khanduja Brothers of Nagpur, the present petitioner. He found that there was no valid permission with the said Rudrashankar Mataprasad Shrivastava in holding trial kiln, muchless in the field belonging to the said Timaji. Curiously enough, the said field's owner has nowhere figured in the further proceedings and is not even a party here. On the report having been made to the Naib Tahsildar by the said Talaati, the Naib Tahsildar immediately sprang into action and served the notices. He recorded the statement of the said Rudrashankar Mataprasad Shrivastava. In that statement, there was a clearcut admission by the said Rudrashankar that there was no permission obtained for running a charcoal kiln. He admitted that he was the representative of the petitioner, namely, M/s Khanduja Brothers, and that the said kiln was constructed and being run on behalf of his employer. He also accepted that about 2000 gunny -bags of charcoal were prepared, out of which a quantity of about 1000 bags of charcoal was taken out. He claimed that the timber for this charcoal was purchased in the Forest Department auctions at Ner and/or Ghatanji, and that the said timber was transported by a truck to Balaji Nagar where the kiln was run. It seems that the said Rudrashankar, Shrivastava filed before the Naib Tahsildar documents like receipts passed by Timaji for Rs. 200/ - as the charges to allow his land for preparation of coal, the sketchmap, the 7/12 extract of the concerned field as also the permission granted by the Assistant Conservator of Forests dated 17.3.1989 to lift up the timber purchased in the auctions. The last document filed was a No Objection Certificate by the Gram Panchay at Yelabara for running a coal kiln. On this basis a report came to be made by the Naib Tahsildar, Yavatmal, to the Sub Divisional Officer. In that report, it was pointed out that the kiln was built and run without the necessary permission of the Revenue Department and, thus agricultural land was used unauthorisedly for the nonagricultural purposes. For this nonagricultural use of the agricultural land, a penalty and fine was proposed to be inflicted against the said Rudrashankar Mataprasad Shrivastava. This was done by report dated 13 -10 -1989. It seems that this report was submitted to the Tahsildar who, by his endorsement dated 17 -10 -1989, agreed with the proposals and probably put the same before the Sub Divisional Officer who passed a cryptic order of inflicting fine of Rs. 3240/ -. The Sub Divisional Officer did not stop here, but proceed to confiscate 80000 Kgms of charcoal, which was attached on 14 -9 -1989 by the Talhati. It was also directed that the said coal should be auctioned and the proceeds thereof should be deposited with the Government. Now. it is also seen from the record that this action was informed by the Naib Tahsildar, Yavatmal, to the Range Forest Officer, Jodmaha, by his communication dated 24 -10 -1989, and he was informed that he should not issue any transit passes in respect of 80000 Kgms of charcoal. The Revenue Inspector of Yelabara was instructed to recover the fine, while the petitioner was informed of the action taken by the Sub Divisional Officer.

(3.) SHRI V.S. Dastane, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, attacked these orders on various grounds. In support of the petition, he firstly submits that before taking the confiscation action, the petitioner was never heard and, therefore, the action was bad in law. According to him, even if the Naib Tahsildar recommended the confiscation of the charcoal before the final auction was taken, the Sub Divisional Officer was bound to hear, because it was the Sub Divisional Officer who ultimately had ordered the confiscation. According to him, the confiscation being a penal action, the opportunity to show cause was bound to be given to the petitioner and because of the fact that such opportunity was not granted, the whole action is rendered illegal and void. The second leg of argument of Shri Dastane is that under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, there was no scope for such a confiscation. He pointed out that there was not a single provision in the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code to support confiscation on account of the non -agricultural user of the agricultural land. He has taken me through the provisions of Sections 44 and 45 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and pointed out that both these Sections are completely silent about any power to confiscate for the said non agricultural use of the agricultural land. Thirdly, Shri Dastane submitted that the petitioner has suffered for the confiscation and the further refusal on the part of the Sub Divisional officer to release the coal has resulted into the coal being wasted.