1 WP 6669...........2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6669 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6962 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.R.R.Karpe and Mr. V.B.Patil, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt. Pleader and Mr. R.P.Phatake, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. ............................. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19/10/2011 PER COURT : 1. The petitioners herein impugn the order passed by the authority U/s 48 ( 7 ) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code [ For short, ‘ the Code ’ ]. Mr. Karpe, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 6669 of 2011 and Mr. V.B.Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 6962 of 2011 submit that the impugned order is passed in flagrant violation 2 WP 6669...........2011 of the principles of natural justice. The petitioners were never supplied the copies of the measurement or the panchanama, on the basis of which the respondent had arrived at the alleged penalty and the liability of the petitioners. In absence of the same, the petitioners are not in a position to defend the matter. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners have not committed any illegal excavation and whatever excavation is made is properly submitted. The learned counsel request to set aside the said order. 2. Mr. K.B.Choudhari and Mr. R.P.Phatke, the learned Govt. Pleaders submit that the petitioners have alternate efficacious remedy by way of Appeal. According to the learned Govt. Pleaders, the petitioners are engaged in illegal acts of excavation and after the measurement was done, the panchanama was prepared, the liability has been fastened. Due opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioners. 3. In normal course, I would have relegated the petitioners to avail the alternate remedy available under law. But, as it is pointed that the orders passed are not in consonance with the principles of natural justice in as much as the petitioners were never supplied with the copies of the measurement or the panchanama, on the basis of which the authorities have arrived at the conclusion, I am entertaining 3 WP 6669...........2011 the present petitions. 4. When the petitioners are being fastened with the liability, in such circumstances, the petitioners are required to be given an opportunity to defend the case, which they are to meet out. The liability is sought to be enforced against the petitioners on the basis of the measurements which are said to have been carried out and the panchanamas effected. The petitioners should have been given the copies of the same so as to effectively defend the case. In absence of the same, the petitioners are handicapped to defend their case. 5. At the same time, as it is the case of monitory liability, I direct the petitioners in W.P. No. 6669 of 2011 to deposit amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- [ Rupees Five Lacs only ] within the period of six ( 6 ) weeks from today i.e. 30/11/2011 and amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- [ Rupees Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand only ] by the petitioners in W.P. No. 6962 of 2011 within the period of six ( 6 ) weeks from today i.e. 30/11/2011. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the parties are relegated before the authority, who would decide the said proceedings initiated U/s 48 ( 7 ) of the Code afresh. Needless to state that the petitioners shall be supplied the copies of the measurement and the panchanamas and all such documents, on which the respondents have placed their 4 WP 6669...........2011 reliance while arriving at the conclusion. The deposit of the amount as directed above is condition precedent. The amount shall be deposited with respondent no. 3. The same shall be subject to the decision of the proceedings. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP WP 6669...........2011