Penalty for illegal excavation unsustainable based on mere presence of machinery without proof of actual excavation.

The Petitioner, a 75-year-old farmer, owns agricultural land in Gat No. 208, Ahmedpur

On 08.02.2022, the Talathi reported to the Tahsildar that a JCB earth-mover was found stationed on the Petitioner’s land on 04.02.2022, allegedly for the purpose of illegal sand excavation from a riverbed

A Panchanama was drawn without notice to the Petitioner

Despite the Petitioner’s denial of involvement or ownership of the vehicle, the Tahsildar imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,50,000 on 03.03.2022 without conducting an inquiry

The Petitioner’s subsequent appeals to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) and District Collector, as well as a revision before the Additional Commissioner, were all dismissed

A mutation entry (No. 717) was recorded to create a charge on the Petitioner's land for the penalty amount

The court applied the fundamental Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the requirement for a fair hearing and the audi alteram partem rule

It emphasized the necessity of Evidence-based Administrative Action, holding that penalties cannot be imposed based on suspicion or "cooked" records

The court also relied on the principle of Judicial Review of Administrative Action, noting that when authorities act in an "erogenous" and casual manner that results in hardship, such actions are liable to be quashed

The Court identified "serious discrepancy" in the dates recorded by the authorities: the Talathi reported the incident on 04.02.2022, the show cause notice cited 08.02.2022, and geo-tagged photographs submitted by the State in its affidavit were dated 03.02.2022

The Court observed that this suggested the case against the Petitioner was "cooked" to cover previous mistakes

The Court found the Panchanama legally invalid as it was undated, conducted behind the Petitioner’s back, and lacked evidencing factors

It further dismissed the authorities’ justifications—that the small size of the land made JCB use unnecessary and that clay residue in the bucket proved guilt—as "absurd" and "irresponsible"

The Court concluded that no inquiry was conducted regarding the JCB’s ownership or its actual use in excavation, and the denial of a hearing was a fatal procedural lapse

The Court held that the authorities acted in a "typical" casual manner causing unnecessary hardship to a farmer

The Court ordered the quashing of Mutation Entry No. 717 and directed the removal of encumbrances from the Petitioner’s land records within two weeks

It further directed the refund of any deposited penalty amounts with 7% interest per annum within four weeks

Finally, the Court directed the District Collector, Latur, to examine the record and take necessary action against the SDO and Tahsildar for filing misleading affidavits and photographs