Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

DICET CREATORS AND INNOVATORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.versusTHE COLLECTOR, MUMBAI AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The High Court may entertain the writ petition and direct a statutory appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, staying coercive steps and execution of the Collector's order pending the appeal.

Summary

Dicet Creators & Innovators (India) Pvt Ltd filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15‑10‑2025 passed by the Collector, Mumbai, alleging lack of jurisdiction. The petitioners sought relief from coercive steps and directed the High Court to entertain the matter despite the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 274 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The Court held that the petition could be entertained and directed the petitioners to file a statutory appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal within one week, with a stay on any coercive action. It also ordered the respondents to file affidavits and set timelines for the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within four weeks, and stayed execution of any adverse order for two weeks. All contentions were kept open and the petition was disposed with these directions.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition challenging a Collector's order that is otherwise subject to a statutory appeal under Section 274 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
  • Whether a stay of coercive steps and execution of the Collector's order can be granted pending the statutory appeal.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • jurisdiction
  • statutory appeal
  • Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
  • stay of execution
  • land revenue code
  • coercive steps
  • high court writ petition

Judgment

                                                                    17. CIVIL WP-15523-25.odt


Amberkar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                              WRIT PETITION NO. 15523 OF 2025

           Dicet Creators & Innovators (India) Pvt Ltd       .. Petitioner
                        Versus
           The Collector, Mumbai & Ors.                      .. Respondents
                                        ....................
            Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Shradha Achliya, Ms.
              Priya Gada, Mr. Ritwik Kulkarni i/by Pushpvijay Kanoji, Advocates
              for Petitioners
            Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for Respondent
             No. 1
            Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Rohan Kanade, Ms.
             Rashmi Raghavan, Mr. Amol Bavare, Mr. Krishnan Iyer & Mr. Rahul
             Pragnya Legal, Advocates for Respondent No. 2 - NCPA
            Mr. Jarin Mukesh Doshi i/by M/s. Malvi Ranchoddas & Co.,
             Advocates for Respondent No. 3
            Ms. Ruchita Chavan, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5
                                           ...................
                                          CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                          DATE          : FEBRUARY 17, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Mr. Jagtiani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for

           Petitioners; Mr. Napahde a/w Dr. Kapadia, learned AGP for

           Respondent No. 1 - State; Mr. Dhond, learned Senior Advocate for

           Respondent No. 2 - NCPA; Mr. Doshi, learned Advocate for Respondent

           No. 3 and Ms. Chavan, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.


           2.       On 11.02.2026 the following order was passed by this Court:-

                    "1.    Not on Board. Mentioned by way of filing praecipe dated
                    11.02.2026. Perused the praecipe.



                                                                                      1 of 5
                                                        17. CIVIL WP-15523-25.odt


      2.     Heard Ms. Achliya, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Kadam,
      learned Advocate for Respondents.
      3.      Ms. Achliya would submit that impugned order has been passed by
      Collector on 15.10.2025 and it is totally without jurisdiction.
      4.      Mr. Kadam, learned Advocate enters appearance for private
      Respondents on notice. He would submit that there is efficacious remedy of
      filing Appeal under Section 274 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,
      1966 available to Petitioner to challenge the said order before Maharashtra
      Revenue Tribunal.
      5.      Ms. Achliya does not dispute this fact but submits that since the
      impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction, this Court should entertain
      the Petition since in a similar case a co-ordinate bench of this Court
      (Coram : Kamal Khata, J.) has entertained an identically placed case in
      respect of a Tata Group Company.
      6.     Be that as it may, if Petitioner makes a statement that they shall
      approach the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, this Court shall direct the
      proceedings to be disposed of within a strict time bound programme and as
      expeditiously as possible by keeping all contentions open.
      7.     Petitioner shall take instructions and accordingly apprise the Court
      on the next adjourned date.
      8.      Needless to state that no coercive steps shall be taken by the
      Collector in the meanwhile against the Petitioner in furtherance of the
      impugned order and time spent in prosecuting this Petition shall also be
      condoned in filing the appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
      9.       Stand over to 17th February 2026. To be placed under the caption
      ‘First on Board’.
      10.    Praecipe is disposed."

3.    Mr. Jagtiani would submit that Petitioner shall challenge the

impugned order before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short

“MRT”) in Statutory Appeal proceeding under the Maharashtra Land

Revenue Code, 1966 (for short “MLRC”) in accordance with law. In

that view of the mater, impugned order dated 15.10.2025 passed by

Collector shall be assailed by the Petitioner by filing the Statutory

Appeal within a period of one week from today along with appropriate

Stay Application. Needless to state that no coercive steps shall be



                                                                           2 of 5
                                                  17. CIVIL WP-15523-25.odt


taken against the Petitioner in furtherance of the impugned order for

recovery or in respect of the subject flat as directed herein under. If

such Appeal is filed, learned MRT is directed by this Court to dispose

of the same as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a

period of four weeks from the date of its filing. All contentions of

parties are expressly kept open.


4.    Mr. Dhond, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Society

would submit that under the provisions of MLRC, if Statutory Appeal

is filed by the Petitioner before the MRT, Petitioner may not be

protected insofar as deposit of any amount is concerned before hearing

of the Appeal. Said submission made by Mr. Dhond is vehemently

objected to by Mr. Jagtiani. However, that will be the sole prerogative

or discretion of the MRT in accordance with law if the parties thereto

apply in that regard.


5.    Ms. Chavan, learned Advocate appears for Respondent Nos. 4

and 5 who are the vendors of Petitioners. She would submit that the

liability is attempted to be enforced on the transferors i.e. vendors of

Petitioner i.e. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by the Petitioners. Hence,

Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are also permitted to appear and file

appropriate affidavit in reply before the MRT.




                                                                    3 of 5
                                                    17. CIVIL WP-15523-25.odt


6.    After hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the respective

parties and perusing the previous order passed by this Court, following

directions are passed and Petition is disposed:-


      (i)    Order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the Collector shall be

             challenged in the Statutory Appeal proceeding to be filed

             by Petitioner within a period of one week from today;


      (ii)   If the Appeal is filed, Respondents therein are directed to

             file affidavit in reply within a period of one week

             thereafter. Rejoinder, if any, shall be filed before the MRT

             within one week thereafter;


      (iii) Once pleadings are completed, learned MRT is directed to

             dispose of the said Appeal within a period of four weeks

             thereafter;


      (iv)   If order passed by learned MRT is adverse to the

             Petitioner, same shall not be executed for a period of two

             weeks to enable the Petitioner to take appropriate

             recourse to law;


      (v)    All contentions of parties are expressly kept open;


      (vi)   In the meanwhile, no coercive steps shall be taken against

             the Petitioner for a period of nine weeks from today which

             shall be subject to the decision in the Appeal.

                                                                      4 of 5
                                                                     17. CIVIL WP-15523-25.odt


           7.            With the above directions, Petition is disposed.



Amberkar                                                 [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
                      Digitally signed
                      by RAVINDRA
           RAVINDRA MOHAN
                    AMBERKAR
           MOHAN    Date:
           AMBERKAR 2026.02.17
                      19:05:48
                      +0530




                                                                                       5 of 5


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.