Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur disposed of five writ petitions filed by Rajendra Shivsing Chanda, Kamlabai Subhash Gaikwad, Sukhdev Bandu Sonune, Gokulabai Ashok Bawane, and Khaledabee Sheikh Nizam against the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Additional Collector, Buldana, and private respondents Suresh Bhagwan Dhanawat and Premsingh Bhaludas Devhane. The petitioners challenged mutation entries made in revenue records regarding agricultural lands in Chandol, Buldana. The court noted that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, which they had not exhausted. Consequently, the court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable and dismissed them, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate appellate authority under Section 9 of the Code.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Petitioners challenged mutation entries in revenue records without availing statutory remedy of appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Court held that writ petitions are not maintainable as efficacious alternative remedy exists - Petitioners directed to approach the appellate authority under Section 9 of the Code (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petitions challenging mutation entries in revenue records are maintainable when the petitioners have an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the appropriate appellate authority under Section 9 of the Code.
Law Points
- Exhaustion of alternative remedy
- Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226
- Mutation entries under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966
- Section 9 appeal remedy
