1 W.P. 9420.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9420 OF 2011 Shivaji S/o Eknath Daware Age : 48 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Kharadgaon, Tq. Shevgaon Dist. Ahmednagar. ....PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Tahsildar Shevgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. The Talathi Mauje Kharadgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..... RESPONDENTS Mr. N.B.Narwade, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. B.V.Wagh, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. 2 W.P. 9420.2011 - [ J ] CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 21/12/2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that encumbrance has been created over his property i.e. his property has been attached resorting to Section 179 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code [ For short, ‘ the Code ’ ] without issuing notice to him. 3. Mr. Narwade, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that while carrying out the mutation entry No. 3618 and attaching the property U/s 179 of the Code, the provisions of law are not followed. Though the order U/s 48 ( 7 ) of the Code is passed, still while proceeding U/s 179 of the Code, notice has to be issued. The learned counsel as such submits that the said order is bad in law. 4. Mr. Wagh, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader submits that when already order U/s 48 ( 7 ) of the Code is passed, then there was no impediment for the authority to resort to Section 179 of the Code and by 3 W.P. 9420.2011 - [ J ] the impugned order, the property is not forfeited but the same is only attached, meaning thereby that the petitioner shall not alienate the property. 5. It is trite that whenever a law requires that a particular thing has to be done in a particular manner, it is to be done in that manner only. When an action U/s 179 of the Code is resorted, then the law requires that prior notice has to be given to the party against whom, the said action is resorted. Section 176 of the Code mandates the authority to comply with the same. In the present case, the same has not been complied. It is not disputed that no notice has been given to the petitioner before carrying out the said mutation and attaching the property of the petitioner. 6. In light of the above, the impugned action can not be sustained and as such is set aside. 7. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause B. No costs. 8. Needless to state that the authority by following proper procedure, may resort to Section 179 of the Code if otherwise it is 4 W.P. 9420.2011 - [ J ] permissible. The petitioner submits that he has already preferred Appeal against the order passed U/s 48 ( 7 ) of the Code. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/W.P. 9420.2011 - [ J ]