Tanvir Kadir Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:16976-DB
1 970.CRI.WP.302-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 302 OF 2026
Tanvir Kadir Shaikh,
Age-43 years, Occu: Business,
R/o. New Nagar Road,
Dilli Naka, Nataki Road,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its -The Principal Secretary,
The Home Department, Mumbai.
2. The Police Inspector,
Sangamner City Police Station, Sangamner,
Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahilyanagar.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Sangamner Office, Sangamner,
Tal. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar,
4. The Tahsildar & Executive Magistrate,
Tahsil Office, Sangamner,
Tq. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar ...Respondents

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. K.N. Shermale
APP for Respondent/State : Mr.N.B. Patil

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : 02.04.2026

2 970.CRI.WP.302-2026.doc

JUDGMENT : ( PER : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. )
. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of the parties, heard both the sides finally at the
admission stage.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court by invoking the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
has put forth the following prayers :
“A) This Criminal Writ Petition may kindly be allowed.
B) The Rule may kindly be made absolute by allowing this
writ petition, thereby directing to the respondents to
handover the excavator i.e. Hyundai Excavator Machine Sr
No. N604D00251, Engine No. 6H.2606/1720016 (Pokland) of
the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 06.02.2026 passed
by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Sangamner
in Criminal Misc. Application No. 62 of 2026 and for that
purpose issue necessary orders.
C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition,
the direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to
release excavator i.e. Hyundai Excavator Machine Sr No.
N604D00251, Engine No. 6H.2606/1720016 (Pokland) of the
petitioner forthwith.
D) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause "C" may kindly
be granted in favor of petitioner.”
FACTUAL MATRIX :
3. The petitioner before us is an owner of Hyundai
Excavator Machine bearing Sr. No. No. N604D00251, Engine
No. 6H.2606/1720016 (Pokland) (hereinafter referred in short
‘the said vehicle’). It is the case of the petitioner that he has

3 970.CRI.WP.302-2026.doc

purchased the said vehicle after borrowing loan from the
private finance company by mortgaging the said vehicle. It is
further contended that it is the only source of his livelihood.
Since, the work of ‘ Gharkul Yojana’ of Gram Panchayat, Kuran
was to be carried out under the government policy and for the
construction of said houses, sand was required, the villagers
from the said village agreed for excavation of sand from the
river bed of Pravara river.
4. It is further contended by the petitioner that on
18.01.2026, when the work of excavation of the sand was
going on, the Circle Officer did not only object to the said
excavation but even lodged the FIR against the petitioner
alleging that the petitioner has committed an offence under
Sections 303(2) and 221 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(hereinafter referred in short ‘BNS,2023’) as well as Sections 3
and 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 by illegally
excavating the sand to the extent of 100 to 125 Brass.
5. It is further case of the petitioner that pursuant to the
FIR bearing Crime No.65 of 2026 registered with Sangamner
Police Station, the said vehicle came to be seized by the
police authorities on the same day. The petitioner therefore,
filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Sangamner (hereinafter referred in short ‘leanred
JMFC’) under Section 503 of ‘Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred in short, ‘the BNSS, 2023’)
bearing Criminal Misc. Application No.62 of 2026 seeking

4 970.CRI.WP.302-2026.doc

release of the said vehicle. The learned JMFC vide order dated
06.02.2026 allowed the said application thereby, directing the
police authorities to handover the possession of the said
vehicle to the petitioner till the conclusion of trial on
petitioner’s executing the indemnity bond of Rs.50 lacs as
well as by imposing certain conditions.
6. The petitioner contends that despite there being an
order passed by learned JMFC dated 06.02.2026, the
respondents are not releasing the said vehicle and therefore,
the petitioner is before this Court.
SUBMISSIONS:-
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant
to the FIR lodged against the petitioner, the said vehicle has
been seized by the police authorities. He would further submit
that the petitioner was constrained to file an application
before the learned JMFC under Section 503 of BNSS 2023
seeking release of the said vehicle and accordingly, the
learned JMFC vide order dated 06.02.2026 directed the said
vehicle to be handed over to the petitioner. He would
therefore, submit that, despite there being an order of
learned JMFC dated 06.02.2026 thereby directing to release
the said vehicle, the respondent/authorities are not handing
over possession of the said vehicle to the petitioner, as a
result of which the only source of his livelihood has been
taken away.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in
the light of order passed by competent Criminal Court

5 970.CRI.WP.302-2026.doc

directing handing over of the said vehicle, even though the
revenue authorities are empowered to impose penalty for
excavation of sand under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred in short ‘the
MLR Code,1966’), however, if at all the vehicle involved in
excavation of the sand is to be seized, the revenue authorities
have to resort to the provisions of Section 48(8)(1) and (2) of
MLR Code.
9. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the
respondent/authorities have not followed the said procedure
prescribed and therefore, the action of the respondent/
authorities is per se illegal.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the
judgment of this Court in the case of Prajwal Vittalrao
Aambhore vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
decided on 21.06.2024 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 432
of 2024 . Relying on the observations in the said case, he
would submit that once the competent Criminal Court directs
the authorities to handover the possession of the vehicle/
machine irrespective of whether the revenue authorities have
resorted to the provisions of Section 48 of MLR Code, the
authorities should handover the possession of vehicle by
imposing certain conditions. He therefore, urge that in the
light of this legal position, the Writ Petition deserves to be
allowed.
11. Per contra , learned APP would submit that the petitioner

6 970.CRI.WP.302-2026.doc

was found while excavating the sand illegally as a result of
which the concerned Circle Officer has lodged the FIR against
the petitioner. He would further submit that not only the FIR
has been lodged but the respondent No.3/Sub-Divisional
Officer,Sangamner has also levied the penalty of Rs.7.5 lacs
against the petitioner for illegal excavation.
12. Learned APP further submit that irrespective of whether
there is an order passed by the learned JMFC, the respondent/
authorities have power to resort to the provisions of Section
48(7) and sub-section (8) of MLR Code and seize the vehicle.
He would therefore, submit that in the light of seizure of the
said vehicle by the respondent/authorities, the petitioner
should avail the remedy under Section 247 of MLR Code by
filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. He therefore,
urged that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.
CONSIDERATION :-
13. Having considered the rival submissions advanced on
behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned APP, we find that pursuant to the FIR lodged against
the petitioner, the police officers have seized the said vehicle
of the petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that pursuant to
an application filed by the petitioner under Section 503 of
BNSS, 2023, the learned JMFC vide order dated 06.02.2026
has directed to handover the possession of the said vehicle to
the petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent
No.3/Sub-Divisional Officer has imposed penalty of Rs.7.5 lacs
on petitioner by resorting to the provisions of Section 48(7) of

7 970.CRI.WP.302-2026.doc

the MLR Code. As per the contention of the respondent/
authorities, they have seized the said vehicle by resorting to
the provisions of Section 47(8) sub-section (1) and (2) of MLR
Code.
14. For better appreciation, we reproduce the relevant
provisions of Section 48 sub-sections (7) and (8) which reads
thus :
“ 48. Government title to mines and minerals:
(1) ………………………………..
(2) ………………………………..
(3) ………………………………..
(4) ………………………………..
(5) ………………………………..
(6) ………………………………..
(7) Any person who without lawful authority extracts, removes,
collect, replaces, picks up or disposes of any mineral from working
or derelict mines, quarries, old dumps, fields, bandhas (whether
on the plea of repairing or constructions of bund of the fields or an
any other plea), nallas, creeks, river beds, or such other places
wherever situate, the right to which veats in, and has not been
assigned by the State Government, shall, without prejudice to any
other mode of action that may be taken against him, be liable, on
the order in writing of the Collector, or any revenue officer not
below the rank of Tahsildar authorised market value of the
minerals so extracted, removed, collected, replaced, picked up by
the collector in this behalf to pay penalty on of an amount [upto
five times] the market value of the minerals so extracted,removed,
collected, replaced, picked up or disposed of, as the case may be.
[(8) (1) Without prejudice to the provision of sub-section (7), the
Collector or any revenue officer authorised by the Collector in this
behalf, may seize and confiscate any mineral extracted, removed,

8 970.CRI.WP.302-2026.doc

collected, replaced, picked up or disposed of from any mine, quarry
or other place referred to in sub-section (7), the right to which
vests in, and has not been assigned by the State Government, and
may also seize and confiscate any machinery and equipment used
for unauthorised extraction, removal, collection, replacement,
picking up or disposal of minor minerals and any means of
transport deployed to transport the same.
(2) Such machinery or equipment or means of transport, used for
unauthorized extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking
up or disposal of minor minerals or transportation thereof, which
is seized under sub-section (1), shall be produced before the
Collector or such other officer not below the rank of Deputy
Collector authorised by the Collector in this behalf, within a
period of forty-eight hours of such seizure, who may release such
seized machinery, equipment or means of transport on payment
by the owner thereof of such penalty as may be prescribed and
also on furnishing personal bond of an amount not exceeding the
market value of or the seized machinery, equipment or means of
transport, stating therein that such seized machinery, equipment
or means of transport shall not be used in future for unauthorised
extraction, removal, collection, replacement, picking up or
disposal of minor minerals and transportation of the same.]”
15. The above provision of Section 48 sub-section (7) and
(8)(1) and (2) of the MLR Code makes is abundantly clear that
the revenue authorities are empowered to impose penalty on
a person for illegal excavation of sand similarly, Section 48(8)
(1) of MLR Code prescribes the procedure for seizure of the
vehicle involved in alleged illegal excavation. Likewise,
provision of Section 48(8)(2) of the MLR Code deals with a
procedure for release of a seized vehicle. The said provision
contemplates production of seized vehicle before the Deputy
Collector within a period of 48 hours. Upon such production of
the seized vehicle, the Deputy Collector is empowered to

9 970.CRI.WP.302-2026.doc

release the said vehicle on payment of penalty and also by
executing a bond not exceeding the market value of the
seized vehicle.
CONCLUSION:-
16. We thus find that in the present case, the procedure
prescribed under Section 48(8)(1) and (2) has not at all been
adhered to as except bare words there is nothing on record to
show the respondent/Authorities have complied with the said
procedure. On the contrary, the respondents are relying
merely on the averments in the FIR to contend that the
respondents have seized the said vehicle on the very same
day of lodging of FIR. We therefore, are of the view that the
same is not in consonance with Section 48(1) and (2) of the
MLR Code.
17. We find that when a statute requires certain things to be
done in a particular manner, the same is required to be done
in that manner alone and not otherwise. In that regard, it
would be apposite to rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Babaji Kondaji Garad and Ors.
vs. Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. Nasik and
Ors. reported in AIR 1994 SC 192 and more particularly
paragraph No.13 which reads thus :
“13. When statute requires a certain thing to be done in a certain
manner, it can be done in that manner alone unless a contrary
indication is to be found in the statute………………………...”
18. Similarly, it would also be apt to rely on the judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandra Kishor Jha

10 970.CRI.WP.302-2026.doc

vs. Mahavir Prasad and Ors. reported in AIR 1999 SC
3558 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 13 of
the said judgment have observed thus :
“13…………………... It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a
statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then
it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner……………
19. We therefore, find that the action of respondents in
retaining the said vehicle without complying with the
statutory provision of Section 48 (8) (1) and (2) of MLR Code
despite there being an order passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class for handing over possession of the said
vehicle is erroneous and therefore, we are inclined to exercise
our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
20. Even otherwise the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and others vs. State of
Gujarat reported in AIR (2002) 10 SCC 283 has reiterated
that the vehicle should not be kept idle in the premises of the
police station and an arrangement is required to be made till
the remedy of the appeal is exhausted by the petitioner. We
therefore, are of the view that the said vehicle of the
petitioner cannot be allowed to remain idle.
21. Before parting, we deem it appropriate to put the
petitioner to certain conditions for directing the respondents
to release the said vehicle. In the judgment relied upon by the
petitioner in the case of Prajwal Vittalrao Aambhore
(supra), this Court while directing the release of vehicle
involved in the said case have directed the petitioner therein

11 970.CRI.WP.302-2026.doc

to deposit Rs.1.00 lacs as against the penalty of Rs.2.00 lacs
imposed on the said petitioner. In the present case,
admittedly, the penalty of Rs.7.5 lacs has been imposed on
the petitioner under Section 48(7) of the MLR Code we
therefore, deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to
deposit Rs.3.5 lacs (Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Thousand Only)
with the respondent No.3/Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner
District Ahmednagar within a period of four weeks from today
which will be a condition precedent for release of the said
vehicle of the petitioner.
22. We also make it clear that the amount so deposited by
the petitioner shall be considered by the Appellate Authority
in case the petitioner prefers an appeal challenging
imposition of penalty and would be subject to outcome of the
said appeal. If the petitioner chooses not to file an appeal
against imposition of penalty, in that case, the respondents
would be at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings for
recovery of remaining amount of penalty.
23. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer
clause ‘B’. Rule is thus, made absolute in above terms with no
order as to costs.
( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , J. )
V.S.Joshi