AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties.
The present petition challenges the final order dated 28.04.2026 which confirms the order of the Collector passed on 09.10.2024.
It is a matter of record and as also can be seen from the averments made in the petition that the father of the petitioner was owning certain piece of land admeasuring 1.58 H.R. Vide sale deed dated 14.08.1996, a part of the said land admeasuring 0.60 H.R. was sold to the respondent No. 5. Thereafter, by subsequent conveyance dated 01.10.2007, the said respondent, i.e., the respondent No. 5, sold it to the respondent No. 4. In the year 2012, the father of the petitioner instituted a suit for cancellation of all these sale deeds on a ground that the portion sold amounted to creation of a fragment and which is prohibited by Section 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’). The Trial Court, in view of the fact that the issue of fragment was pressed into service, by order dated 13.11.2008, referred the matter to the competent authority to settle and decide the same.
In the litigation which ensued, there were orders passed by the revenue authorities from time to time, and the final order being the order of the Commissioner, impugned in the present petition.
I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner raises a primary ground that the authorities below have failed to take into consideration the notifications issued under the said Act which were prevalent at the time when the conveyances were executed, and have relied upon subsequent notifications in that regard to non-suit the petitioner. It is his basic contention that such an exercise is totally uncalled for and the decisive date would be the date of conveyance and the extent of land of which fragment is created in pursuance to the provisions of the said Act.
Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent opposes the contentions. Even though, the litigation between the parties is admitted, he raises a preliminary objection regarding availability of a statutory alternate remedy in terms of a second revision before the respondent No. 1 State Government. He further submits that the writ petition is therefore not entertainable. He places reliance in the judgment of this Court passed in W.P. No. 903 of 2026, Mohd. Irshad Mohd. Sheikh vs. Addl. Commissioner, Nagpur and others, where earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2016) 2 SCC Page 213, Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, has been relied. Taking support from these two judgments, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that existence of an alternate efficacious remedy would be a factor which could have a bearing while entertaining the writ petition, more particularly, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in turn, places reliance on a judgment reported in 2023 SCC Online SC Page 95, Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and others, to support that existence of an alternate legal remedy cannot be an absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
I have perused the aforesaid judgments with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, and also gone through the record. Admittedly, and as has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is an alternate remedy. In a recent judgment in Civil Appeal No. 739 of 2026 in P. Suresh vs. D. Kalaivani and Others, the Hon’ble Apex Court had taken into consideration the entire case law on the subject and found that alternate remedy, even though may not be an absolute bar, can be a decisive factor.
In that view of the matter, and without commenting anything on merits, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Further it would be fair if the revision is filed before the State as contemplated under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code within 15 days from today, and such an application is made before the Civil Court stating this fact on record, the Civil Court would take into consideration the said fact that a statutory revision pending before the authority before passing any order in accordance with law. Petition disposed of in above terms.