Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Bhanudas, Vithal, and Pralhad Gaikwad, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging an order dated 29.05.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Jalna, in File No. LR/ICL/CR/2/92. The Deputy Collector had declared certain lands belonging to the petitioners as surplus under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The petitioners sought a stay of that order and prayed for the writ petition to be allowed. The court noted that the petitioners had already filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, against the same order, which was pending. The court observed that the Deputy Collector's order was a reasoned order and that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal. The court held that no interference was warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as there was no jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural justice. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The court did not find any merit in the petition and declined to grant any relief.
Headnote
A) Land Ceiling - Surplus Land Determination - Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 - Sections 10, 12 - The petitioners challenged the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Jalna, dated 29.05.1993, declaring their lands as surplus. The court held that the Deputy Collector had correctly applied the provisions of the Act and that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The writ petition was dismissed as the order did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 1-3)
B) Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - The court declined to entertain the writ petition as the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal pending before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The court observed that the Deputy Collector's order was a reasoned order and no interference was warranted under Article 226. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Collector's order declaring certain lands as surplus under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 was valid and whether the writ petition should be entertained when an appeal was pending before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Land Ceiling
- Surplus Land
- Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act
- 1961
- Writ Jurisdiction
- Alternative Remedy
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (03) 58
Writ Petition No. 1807 of 1993
Mr. P.F. Patni for the petitioners; Mr. K.B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for respondent/State
Bhanudas s/o. Kanhuji Gaikwad, Vithal s/o. Kanhuji Gaikwad, Pralhad s/o. Babu Gaikwad
The State of Maharashtra through Dy. Collector, Land Reforms, Jalna; Radhakishan s/o. Durgasingh Chavan (deleted as per order dated 11.06.1993)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Jalna, declaring certain lands as surplus under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash the order dated 29.05.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector and to stay its operation pending disposal of appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were aggrieved by the Deputy Collector's order declaring their lands as surplus under the Ceiling Act.
Previous Decisions
The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Jalna, passed an order on 29.05.1993 in File No. LR/ICL/CR/2/92 declaring the petitioners' lands as surplus. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, which was pending at the time of the writ petition.
Issues
Whether the Deputy Collector's order declaring surplus land was valid under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.
Whether the writ petition should be entertained when an alternative remedy of appeal was available and pending.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Deputy Collector's order was erroneous and that they had filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
The State respondent argued that the order was reasoned and that the writ petition should not be entertained as an alternative remedy was available.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Deputy Collector's order was a reasoned order and that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Therefore, no interference was warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers : A) The writ petition of the petitioners may please be allowed. B) The judgment and order passed by the Dy. Collector, Land Record, Jalna, in File No. LR/ICL/CR/2/92 dated 29.05.1993 may please be stayed till the final disposal of appeal pending before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P. for the respondent/State. Perused the petition and the annexures. The order passed by the Deputy Collector is a reasoned order. The petitioners have already filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, which is pending. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
Procedural History
The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Jalna, passed an order on 29.05.1993 declaring the petitioners' lands as surplus. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, which was pending. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present writ petition on an unspecified date. The writ petition was heard and dismissed on 11.03.2011.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961: Sections 10, 12
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226
