Bombay High Court
Shri. Sampat Mahadu Surve (Since Decd.) ... vs Nathu Barku Ghuge (Since Decd.) Through ... on 5 February, 2024
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2024:BHC-AS:5520
41-7239-2018.doc
Nikita
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7239 OF 2018
Sampat Mahadu Surve ( since deceased)
Through LRS. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Nathu Barku Ghuge (since deceased)
through LRS and Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Pramod N. Joshi for the Petitioner-Applicant.
Mr. Vishwajeet S. Kapse for Respondent No. 1 A.
Mrs. V. S. Nimblakar, AGP for the State-Respondent
Nos. 4 to 5.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 5, 2024
P.C.:
1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14 th August
2013 passed by Sub-divisional Officer in Tenancy Appeal No.36 of
2013 confirming the order passed by Tahsildar dated 30 th October
2013. Learned advocate for the petitioner relying on judgment of
Apex Court in the case of V. S. Charati Vs. Hussain Nhanu
Jamadar by L.Rs. Reported in 1999 (1) Mh. L.J. 782 urged that
the Tahsilsar in Tenancy Case No.1 of 2011, had not power to
reopen proceedings under Section 32 (G) and 32(M) in first round
of litigation. Such power is available with the Appellate Authority
against such order. The proceedings under Section 32(G) has
attained finality in view of the order passed by Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal dated 29th July 1987.
41-7239-2018.doc
2. Learned advocate for the respondents invited my attention to
the impugned order dated 14th August 2013. According to him, the
Appellate Authority under Section 74 of Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 has exercised the power and,
therefore, petitioner has alternative statutory remedy by way of
revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
3. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both
sides, I am of the opinion that the grievance raised by the
petitioner needs to be adjudicated by Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal in a revision which is a statutory remedy.
4. Considering the nature of dispute and facts and
circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled
to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
5. Considering the availability of statutory remedy before the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in view of the judgment of Apex
Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.
Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal reported in 2014 (1) SCC 603 in
paragraph No.15 held as under:
"15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised
some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where
the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the
provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the
fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted
to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an
order has been passed in total violation of the principles of
natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh
Nathmal V. Supt. Of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419,
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State or Orissa,
41-7239-2018.doc
(1983) 2 SCC 433 and other similar judgments that the High
Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to
the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action
complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism
for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore,
when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of
grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring
the statutory dispensation."
6. The writ petition is disposed of by granting opportunity to
the petitioner to invoke remedy of revision before the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal. No costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
