Bombay High Court
DICET CREATORS AND INNOVATORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.versusTHE COLLECTOR, MUMBAI AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- MILIND N JADHAV
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
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 — s. 274
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
Checking your session…