Bombay High Court
Rahibai Laxman Lokhande And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Govt. Pleader ... on 5 December, 2023
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
2023:BHC-AS:36568
914-wp-7400-2023.doc
Sonali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7400 OF 2023
Rahibai Laxman Lokhande & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Keshav B. Borhade, for the Petitioners.
Mrs. M. S. Srivastava, AGP, for the State/Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Tejas Deshmukh, for Respondent Nos.3 to 8.
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 5th DECEMBER 2023
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Keshav Borhade, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners, Mrs. Srivastava, learned AGP appearing for the
State/Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Tejas Deshmukh, learned
counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.3 to 8.
2. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the legality and
validity of the order dated 18 th April 2023 passed by the District
Superintendent of Land Records in Appeal dz-,d=h@v-dz-
5419@2022@2732. The challenge in the said Appeal was to the
Mutation Entry No.3130.
914-wp-7400-2023.doc
Sonali
3. At the outset, it is the contention of Mr. Deshmukh, learned
counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents that the Writ
Petition be not entertained in view of the availability of the alternate
remedy. He submitted that there is Appeal provided under Section
247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ("the said Code").
The said Section 247 reads as under:-
"247. Appeal and appellate authorities.-(1) In the
absence of any express provisions of this Code, or of any
law for the time being in force to the contrary, an appeal
shall lie from any decision or order passed by a revenue
or survey office specified in column 1 of the Schedule E
under this Code or any other law for the time being in
force to the officer specified in column 2 of that Schedule
whether or not such decision or order may itself have
been passed on appeal from the decision of order of the
officer specified in column 1 of the said Schedule:
Provided that, in no case the number of appeals shall
exceed two.
(2) When on account of promotion or change of
designation, an appeal against any decision or order lies
under this section to the same officer who has passed the
decision or order appealed against, the appeal should lie
to such other officer competent to decide the appeal to
whom it may be transferred under the provisions of this
Code".
(Emphasis added)
4. The relevant portion of Schedule E, which is referred in Section
247 of the said Code is as follows:-
914-wp-7400-2023.doc
Sonali
SCHEDULE E
(SEE SECTION 247)
SURVEY OFFICER APPELLATE AUTHORITY
1. District Inspector of Land Superintendent of Land Records
Records, Survey Tahsildar or Officers of equal ranks as may
and such Officers not above be specified by the State
the rank of District Inspector Government in this behalf.
of Land Records.
2. Superintendent of Land Director of Land Records or the
Records and other Officers of Deputy Director of Land Records,
equal ranks. who may be invested with the
powers of Director of Land
Records by the State Government
in this behalf.
(Emphasis added)
5. Thus, therefore, it is clear that the Appeal will lie to the
Director of Land Records as the impugned order is passed by the
District Superintendent of Land Records.
6. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners that the impugned order itself has been passed in Appeal
and therefore, the Second Appeal is not competent under Section 247
of the said Code. However, Section 247 of the said Code very clearly
specifies that two Appeals are competent and the Appellate
Authorities are described in Schedule E. In fact, Section 247 clearly
provides that an appeal shall lie from any decision or order passed by
a revenue or survey office specified in column 1 of the Schedule E
914-wp-7400-2023.doc
Sonali
under said Code or any other law for the time being in force to the
officer specified in column 2 of Schedule whether or not such
decision or order may itself have been passed on appeal from the
decision of order of the officer specified in column 1 of the said
Schedule. Therefore, there is no substance in the said contention.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has also relied on
the decision dated 19th December 2019 passed by a learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition No.5478 of 2016 [Nagpur Bench] in the case of
Shri. Abdul Shahid vs. Shri. Abdul Rab & Ors. However, the said
decision is concerning whether in the facts and circumstances of that
case, the alternate remedy of Revision under Section 257 of the said
Code is efficacious remedy and whether the same is the alternate
remedy. The said decision will have no application to the present
case.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed in view of
availability of the alternate remedy of statutory Appeal under Section
247 of the said Code, with no order as to costs.
9. It is clarified that the Petitioners can file the Appeal as
contemplated under Section 247 of the said Code challenging the
impugned order. It is further clarified that this Court has not
914-wp-7400-2023.doc
Sonali
considered the merits and all contentions on merits are expressly kept
open.
10. For the Petitioners to avail the remedy of Appeal, the
proceedings before the Respondent No.2 are stayed upto 31 st
December 2023.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Signed by: Sonali Patil
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/12/2023 10:18:57
