wp6949/10 (1) agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6949 OF 2010 Anil Achhut Masurkar .. Petitioner versus Narayan Krushna Sawant & Ors .. Respondents Mr.S.M.Sabrad for the petitioner. Mr.D.A.Patil for respondent No.1. Mr.S.N.Bhosale, A.G.P for respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 23rd September 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing of the respondent No.1. I have also heard learned A.G.P appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2 An order was passed by the Collector against the 1st respondent herein directing the 1st respondent to deposit an amount of Rs.20,56,910/-. The said order was passed by the Collector in exercise of powers under sub-section 7 of section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. wp6949/10 (2) The said order was passed on the ground that the 1st respondent has indulged in unauthorised excavation of sand of certain quantity. An appeal was preferred by the 1st respondent before the Additional Commissioner. By the impugned order, the Additional Commissioner has passed an order of remand directing the Collector to hold an enquiry after visiting the site and thereafter to fix the responsibility on account of unauthorised excavation of the sand. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that during the pendency of the appeal, stay was granted by the Additional Commissioner on application made by the 1st respondent subject to deposit Rs.5,00,000/-. He stated that the amount was not deposited by the 1st respondent and therefore the appeal ought not to have been heard and the same ought to have been dismissed. He submitted that the Additional Commissioner has ignored the report of the Maharashtra Maritime Board dated 30th November 2009. He submitted that there was no reason to ignore the said report which categorically records that there was unauthorised excavation of sand and there was no reason to dispute the correctness of the report of the Maritime Board which was based on scientific investigation. He submitted that while passing an order of remand, the learned Additional wp6949/10 (3) Commissioner has observed that panchnama was not drawn as regards excavation of the sand. He submitted that that was no ground for remand in as much as even as of today, no panchnama can be drawn. 4 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The learned Additional Commissioner has observed that the order of the Collector is based on the report of the Maritime Board dated 30th November 2009. The learned Additional Commissioner has taken a note of the fact that the report records that there was excavation of sand ,but he has observed that the report does not show that the said excavation was made by the 1st respondent. Apart from observing that there was no panchnama drawn, the learned Additional Commissioner has observed that examination of the returns filed by the 1st respondent was necessary. He has further observed that if the returns were not filed by the 1st respondent, action ought to have been taken against the 1st respondent on that ground. 5 Perusal of the impugned order does not show that the report of the Maritime Board has been rejected. On the contrary, the report has been accepted but the order of remand is only for the limited purposes of fixing the responsibility. After holding an enquiry and after fixing the responsibility, wp6949/10 (4) the Collector will have to pass an order directing the payment of appropriate amount in accordance with sub-section 7 of section 48 of the said Code. 6 There is no reason to interfere with the order of remand. Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. It is, however, directed that enquiry on the basis of the impugned order shall be concluded by the Collector on or before 30th November 2010 and appropriate order shall be passed after hearing the petitioner and the 1st respondent. (A.S.OKA, J)