Bombay High Court

KUBER MEGA STRUCTURE AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF MAHARASTHRA THRU. COLLECTOR AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The presence of an alternative remedy under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act does not preclude the plaintiff from instituting a civil suit under the CPC.

Summary

The petitioners filed a revision against an order of the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna, which had allowed a civil suit for removal of encroachment on a road. The petitioners argued that the trial court erred by not appreciating the precedent in Fatima Joao v. Village Panchayat of Merces and that when an equally effective remedy exists under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, a civil suit should not be permitted. The respondents contended that the presence of multiple remedies does not preclude filing a suit and that the trial court’s findings were correct. The High Court examined the provisions of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Section 143), and Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, concluding that a plaintiff may elect either remedy and that the revision raised no substantive ground. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision application as lacking merit.

Issues considered

When a remedy under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 is available, can a plaintiff still file a civil suit under the Civil Procedure Code for removal of encroachment?
Does the existence of multiple statutory remedies bar the institution of a civil suit in the present facts?

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 9, Order VII Rule 11(d)
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 — s. 143
Mamlatdar’s Courts Act

Subjects

multiple remedies
civil suit
Mamlatdar’s Courts Act
encroachment
revision
jurisdiction
CPC

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:44056


                                                                               cra165.26
                                                  -1-


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         924 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 165 OF 2026

                                   Kuber Mega Structure and another
                                              VERSUS
                            State of Maharashtra Thru. Collector and others
                                                  ...
                 Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri Sanjeev Deshpande, senior
                 advocate i/b Ms. Priyanka A. Deshpande a/w Sandeep Rebari and
                 Mr. C. R. Deshpande
                 AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: Mrs. Vaishali P. Dama
                                                  …..

                                      CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                                      DATED : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026

                 PER COURT :-


                 1.        This revision is preferred against the order passed by the

                 learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna below Exh.28 in

                 Regular Civil Suit No. 823 of 2025, dated 07.05.2026.           It was

                 application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code

                 1908.



                 2.        Learned senior counsel for the applicants submitted that the

                 order passed by the learned trial court is illegal and not sustainable.

                 He pointed out the reasons in the impugned order and submitted that

                 the learned trial court failed to appreciate the case law in Fatima

                 Joao vs. Village Panchayat of Merces and another, 2001 (2)

                 B.C.J. 141. He pointed out the reasons recorded in paragraph 11 of
                                                               cra165.26
                                  -2-

the said order and submitted that, when an equally efficacious

remedy is available under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, the

plaintiff cannot file a civil suit for removal of obstruction,

encroachment, etc. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order

be set aside and the present revision application be allowed by

rejecting the plaint.



3.         Learned A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 strongly

opposed the application and submitted that when there are multiple

remedies one cannot sue the remedy which he institute.             It is

submitted that the reasons and findings of the trial court are legal and

correct and no interference is warranted.



4.        On perusal of the plaint as well as the grounds raised in the

application alongwith the reasons and findings in the impugned order,

this Court found that when multiple remedies under various Acts are

available, the plaintiff being dominus litis may proceed as per the

provisions of Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, under Section 143 of the

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 or by filing civil suit under

section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for removal of

encroachment on the road, as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint.



5.        In view of the above, there is no substance in the objection
                                                              cra165.26
                                 -3-

raised in the revision application. The revision application therefore,

deserves to be dismissed in limine.     The Revision is accordingly,

dismissed.



                                   (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)

rlj/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…