GUNAJI RAMJI SURNAR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Quashing of Penalties for Illegal Sand Excavation Due to Contradictory Evidence, Violation of Natural Justice, and Casual Approach of Revenue Authorities.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:13546
Decision Date: 26-03-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 226; Principles of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem); Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966; Administrative Law - Abuse of Discretion and Procedural Impropriety
- Facts: The petitioner, a 75-year-old farmer, owned agricultural land in village Rudha. Revenue authorities (the Talathi) reported finding a JCB earth-mover stationed on the petitioner’s land on February 4, 2022, alleging it was intended for illegal sand excavation from a nearby riverbed. A panchanama was drawn without notice to the petitioner. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued citing the date of the alleged offense as February 8, 2022. Despite the petitioner's denial of ownership of the JCB and any wrongdoing, the Tahsildar imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,50,000. This order was upheld through successive appeals by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the District Collector, and the Additional Commissioner. Additionally, a mutation entry was made in the revenue records, placing an encumbrance on the petitioner’s land for the penalty amount.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner approached the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) through a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer, Collector, and Additional Commissioner.
- Issue: Whether the penalty for illegal sand excavation was legally sustainable given the discrepancies in the evidence and the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice?
- Holding: No, the penalty is not sustainable. The court quashed all impugned orders and the mutation entry.
- Reasoning: The court found "serious discrepancies" in the record. The Talathi reported the incident on February 4, 2022, while the show-cause notice and penalty orders cited February 8, 2022. Most critically, geo-tagged photographs submitted by the authorities as evidence were shot on February 3, 2022, contradicting their own narrative. The court noted that the panchanama was conducted behind the petitioner's back and lacked evidentiary substance. It further observed that no opportunity for a hearing was granted, violating principles of natural justice. The court dismissed the authorities' logic that a JCB on a small farm must be for illegal use, noting that farmers use earth-movers for various legitimate agricultural purposes. The court characterized the revenue authorities' actions as casual, "cooked up," and a "mockery" of the farmer, ultimately ordering the refund of any deposited penalty with 7% interest.
🔒 For Members Only