1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 601 OF 2009 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 750 OF 2009 Sitaram Kathod Mitkar & anr. ... Appellants v/s State of Maharashtra & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Rajesh S. Datar for the appellants. Mr.A.R.Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 16TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. The appellants are aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court passed on 12.1.2009. The Trial Court has held that the suit is barred in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, under which an appeal is provided against the order passed by the Tahsildar, Bhiwandi. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that, if the notice is void ab initio, the civil suit filed by the appellants is maintainable. He submits that the demand notice has been issued in a composite manner, for 2 several lands without identifying the lands belonging to the appellants. The notice of demand is in respect of Survey Nos.50 to 56 and appellants claim to be the owners of only Survey No.56. He further submits that the demand notice does not disclose as to what amount is payable in respect of Survey No.56. It is further contended that earth which is excavated while constructing a building cannot be termed a mineral for the use of which a penalty is leviable. 2. The learned advocate further contends that, in any event, the revenue authorities will not be able to decide these issues raised by the appellant and, therefore, a civil suit is maintainable. 3. In my view, the revenue authorities i.e. the appellate authority under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, can always consider the submissions, if made by the appellants, as to whether the notice of demand is bad in law. The authorities can also consider as to whether the appellants have used the earth for leveling and not for a construction, as contended by them. Whether such use of earth can invite a penalty in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in AIR 1993 Bom. 144, can also be decided by the Revenue Authorities. 3 4. Therefore, in my view, the Trial Court has committed no error while refusing the interim relief. 5. Appeal from order dismissed along with the civil application. .....