Bombay High Court

MOTIRAM RAOJI MARATHE AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY REVENUE AND FOREST DEPARTMENT AND ORS

Decided: 7 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The High Court may not entertain the writ petition and allowed its withdrawal, directing the petitioners to approach the Revisional Authority.

Summary

Petitioners Motiram Raoji Marathe and others filed a writ petition challenging an order, but the Court noted that a statutory revision remedy under the Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906 was available. The Court expressed its disinclination to entertain the petition on its merits and allowed the petitioners to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Revisional Authority. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn, and the Court clarified that it had not considered any merits or contentions, including the maintainability of an application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Court Act. No substantive adjudication on the issues was made.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition when a statutory revision remedy is available under the Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906.

Legislation cited

Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906 — s. 5

Subjects

writ petition
revision
statutory remedy
Mamlatdar’s Court Act
Civil appellate jurisdiction
withdrawal of petition

Judgment

                                                                         28-WP11290-2026.DOC

                                                                                     Santosh

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 11290 OF 2026

                      Motiram Raoji Marathe And Ors                           ...Petitioners
                                       Versus
                      State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary
                      Revenue And Forest Department And Ors                …Respondents

                      Mr. Rajesh Kachare, for the Petitioners.

                                                      CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                      DATED: 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026

                      PC:-

                      1.     Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.


                      2.     As there is statutory remedy of revision against the order

                      impugned in this petition, when this Court expressed its

                      disinclination to entertain the petition, the learned Counsel for

                      the Petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty

                      to approach the Revisional Authority.


                      3.     Leave granted with liberty as prayed for.


                      4.     The petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.09.08
                      5.     It is clarified that this Court has not entered into the
10:16:41 +0530




                      merits of the matter and all contentions, including the

                      maintainability of the application under Section 5 of the


                                                      1/2
                                                 28-WP11290-2026.DOC

Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906 before the Tahsildar are kept open

for consideration by the Revisional Authority.



                                          [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                               2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…