Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the judgment and order dated 24th August 1984 passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (SLDT), Gevrai, in Case No. 76/LC/841. The petition sought to set aside the Tribunal's order regarding surplus land determination. The court noted that the order of the SLDT could be reviewed by the Additional Commissioner in suo moto enquiry under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act or could be assailed before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT). The State had not exhausted these alternative remedies. The court observed that the writ petition was wholly misconceived as the High Court has limitations in reappreciating evidence, and the proper recourse would have been to approach the MRT or the Additional Commissioner. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, but left it open to the State to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The court further directed that the concerned forum should consider the pendency of the writ petition from 1984 till date while considering any prayer for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act. The rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Alternative Remedy - The State of Maharashtra filed a writ petition directly challenging an order of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal without availing the statutory remedy of suo moto revision by the Additional Commissioner or appeal to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act. The court held that the writ petition was wholly misconceived and dismissed it, leaving it open to the State to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The court also directed the concerned forum to consider the pendency of the writ petition for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition challenging an order of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal is maintainable when the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedies available under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The rule stands discharged. The court left it open to the petitioner/State to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The concerned forum will consider the pendency of the writ petition from 1984 till date while considering the prayer for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Maintainability of writ petition
- Exhaustion of statutory remedies
- Suo moto revision
- Limitation Act
