Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging a judgment and order dated 24th August 1984 passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (SLDT), Gevrai, in File No. LC/455. The petition sought to quash the Tribunal's order. The Court noted that it was not in dispute that the order of the SLDT could be examined by the Additional Commissioner in a suo moto enquiry under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act or could be assailed before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT). The Court observed that the filing of the writ petition was wholly misconceived because the High Court has limitations in reappreciating evidence, and the proper recourse would have been to either appeal to the MRT or for the Additional Commissioner to take suo moto revision. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it could not be entertained. However, the Court left it open to the petitioner/State to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law. It 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, and also look into the provisions of the Limitation Act. The Rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Availability of statutory remedies under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act - The State filed a writ petition directly challenging an order of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal without availing the remedy of suo moto revision by the Additional Commissioner or appeal to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. 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. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition challenging an order of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal is maintainable when alternative remedies under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act are available.
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 and will look into the provisions of the Limitation Act.
Law Points
- Availability of alternative remedy
- Exhaustion of statutory remedies
- Writ jurisdiction not to be entertained when alternative remedy exists
- Suo moto revision by Additional Commissioner
- Appeal to Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
