(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2737 OF 2010 Shripad s/o. Pandurang Khisti, Age : - , Occupation : Agriculture and Business, R/o. Village : Ajanuj, Taluka : Shrigonda, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 2. The District Collector, Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. H.H. Padalkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader is not in a position to assist the court as brief is not with him. 3. Mr. H.H. Padalkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has relied upon a conclusion reached by the Divisional Commissioner in order dated 1-8-2009. According to him, apparent non-application of mind can be seen because of inconsistent approach therein. He states that before taking possession of site, 33 unauthorized suction pumps working therein were informed to the respondents and still no steps were taken to remove it. Again Police machinery was informed and then at the instance of Tahsildar, 20 unauthorized pumps and boats were removed. According to him, as ownership of those pumps is not established and the same did not belong to the petitioner, action of cancellation of his license, as initiated, is unsustainable. 4. The order passed by the Divisional Commissioner is in a revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and that revision was against the order of (3) Collector, Ahmednagar, dated 22-5-2009. The fact show that the petitioner was permitted to excavate sand from Bhima river and he was also permitted to use five suction pumps. He took possession of allotted site on 11-12-2008. The report of Tahsildar shows that on 11-1-2009, there were 33 working suction pumps at site. The notice was accordingly issued to the petitioner and the petitioner did not reply to it point-wise. The orders also show that he was to submit return of sand excavated by 5th day of each month. But that was not done and even bond was submitted belatedly i.e. after 50 days. The consideration also shows that the Police authorities have removed 20 pumps in joint action along with the Department. 5. Thus, after the petitioner took possession of site, some pumps were unauthorizedly excavating sand. The statement given by the petitioner shows that at the relevant time, there were 33 trucks waiting to be loaded with sand and sometimes it took 2 - 3 days time for their turn to come. He also states that about 200 brass sand can be excavated by using one suction pump. 6. All these details are looked into by the Divisional Commissioner. It is apparent that if there were unauthorized pumps and boats indulged in nefarious activities, the petitioner (4) ought not to have taken possession of the site. He in spite of that, proceeded further. His contention is, license given to him was for short duration. As license was for particular quantity and particular number of pumps, he could have worked out loss caused to him because of not handing over possession and could have recovered it. His act of taking possession clearly shows that his story of installation or existence of unauthorized suction pumps at site by somebody else could not have been accepted. 7. The other contention of the petitioner is, calculations have also not been done properly. Perusal of order show that capacity of each pump has been looked into and thereafter approximate quantity of sand excavated has been worked out. 8. I do not find anything perversity in the approach adopted by the Divisional Commissioner. No case is made out warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 9. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2737