Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, IVRCL Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 30th June 2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mumbai Suburban District, and the subsequent order dated 30th September 2015 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Mumbai Suburban District, and the order dated 30th November 2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division. The petitioner had earlier challenged a mutation entry in the revenue records, which led to a previous round of litigation. In the first round, the petitioner had approached the revenue authorities and obtained certain orders. However, the petitioner again challenged the same mutation entry and the subsequent revenue orders in the present petition. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and various revenue officers, opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and that the petition was a second round of litigation without exhausting the available remedies. The court, after hearing the arguments, held that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy and had already availed of remedies in a previous round of litigation. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the second round of litigation was not permissible. The court did not go into the merits of the case and disposed of the petition with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Petitioner challenged mutation entry and revenue orders without exhausting statutory appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Court held that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy and had already availed of remedies in a previous round of litigation - Held that the petition was dismissed as the second round of litigation was not permissible (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging revenue orders when the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and has already availed of remedies in a previous round of litigation.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Exhaustion of statutory remedies
- Second round of litigation
- Mutation entry
- Revenue orders
- Writ jurisdiction
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (06) 64
Writ Petition No. 1830 of 2015
Ms. Shilpa Kapil a/w Adv. Shruti Bhatt for the Petitioner, Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 – State
IVRCL Limited formerly known as IVRCL Infrastructure & Projects Ltd.
State of Maharashtra, Sub-Divisional Officer, Mumbai Suburban District, Tahsildar (Kurla), Collector (Appeals), Mumbai Suburban District, Addl. Commissioner, Konkan Division
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging revenue orders regarding mutation entry in land records.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of orders dated 30th June 2015, 30th September 2015, and 30th November 2015 passed by revenue authorities.
Filing Reason
Petitioner challenged mutation entry and subsequent revenue orders without exhausting statutory appeal remedy.
Previous Decisions
Petitioner had already availed of remedies in a previous round of litigation regarding the same mutation entry.
Issues
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Whether the petition constitutes a second round of litigation and is thus not permissible.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the revenue orders were erroneous and should be quashed.
Respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and that the petition was a second round of litigation.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court should not entertain a writ petition when the petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal and has already availed of remedies in a previous round of litigation. The second round of litigation is not permissible.
Judgment Excerpts
The present Petition lamentably is the second round of litigation.
In the first round, the Petitioner had challenged the Order dated 30th June 2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mumbai Suburban District.
The Petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging revenue orders. The court noted that the petitioner had already availed of remedies in a previous round of litigation regarding the same mutation entry. The court dismissed the petition as not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy and the petition being a second round of litigation.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: Section 247
