Retention of seized vehicles without following mandatory statutory procedure under Section 48(8) of MLR Code is illegal.

The petitioner, owner of a Hyundai Excavator, was accused of illegal sand excavation.

An FIR (No. 65/2026) was registered under Sections 303(2) and 221 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 3 and 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

Consequently, the police seized the vehicle.

On 06.02.2026, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Sangamner, passed an order under Section 503 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, directing the release of the vehicle on an indemnity bond of ₹50 lacs.

Despite this order, the respondent authorities refused to release the vehicle, claiming they had seized it under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (MLR) Code, 1966, and had imposed a penalty of ₹7.5 lacs.

The court applied Section 503 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding the custody and disposal of property during trial.

It focused heavily on Section 48(7) and (8) of the MLR Code, 1966, which empowers revenue officers to impose penalties for illegal extraction and mandates that seized machinery be produced before a Deputy Collector within 48 hours for release upon payment of prescribed penalties and bonds.

The court relied on the salutary principle established in Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Chandra Kishor Jha v. Mahavir Prasad, which dictates that if a statute provides for an act to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone.

Furthermore, it followed the precedent in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, holding that vehicles should not be kept idle in police stations.

The court observed that while the revenue authorities have the power to seize vehicles for illegal excavation under Section 48 of the MLR Code, they must strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed in sub-sections (8)(1) and (8)(2).

In the present case, there was no evidence on record to show that the respondents complied with the statutory requirement of producing the vehicle before a Deputy Collector within 48 hours of seizure.

The court noted that the respondents' reliance on the FIR alone did not constitute procedural compliance under the MLR Code.

Since the JMFC had already ordered the release of the vehicle and the respondents failed to follow the specific statutory procedure for continued detention, their action was deemed erroneous.

To balance the state's revenue interests with the petitioner's right to livelihood, the court determined that the vehicle should be released subject to a partial deposit of the penalty.

As a condition precedent for release, the petitioner was ordered to deposit ₹3.5 lacs with the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner, within four weeks.

The court clarified that this deposit would be subject to the outcome of any appeal filed by the petitioner against the ₹7.5 lac penalty; if no appeal is filed, the state remains at liberty to recover the remaining balance.

Rule was made absolute.