Bombay High Court

RAMDAS BABAN KSHIRSAGAR GURAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the petition is dismissed as an alternative remedy is available and the order is not ante‑dated.

Summary

Ramdas Baban Kshirsagar Gurav filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26 September 2025 passed by the Additional Collector, Satara, in the second RTS Appeal No. 138 of 2024. The petitioner argued that the order was back‑dated and that the High Court should decide the appeal afresh on its merits. The Court observed that the order was not ante‑dated and that the alleged back‑dating had no basis. It further noted that an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the law. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition without reaching the merits, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the appropriate legal remedy.

Issues considered

Whether the order dated 26 September 2025 is amenable to writ jurisdiction when an alternative remedy exists.
Whether the order can be considered ante‑dated and thus invalid.
Whether the High Court can entertain the petition without examining the merits of the underlying appeal.

Subjects

writ petition
administrative order
ante‑dating
alternative remedy
jurisdiction
High Court

Judgment

2026:BHC-KOL:7929-DB

44-WP-2041-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 2041 OF 2026

Ramdas Baban Kshirsagar Gurav ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Others ...Respondents

——————
Mr. Purushottam Chavan a/w Mr. Pravin Jadhav, for the Petitioner.
Mr. N. C. Walimbe, Addl. GP a/w Ms. Tejas Kapre, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1
to 4-State.
——————
Coram : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
Date : AUGUST 24, 2026
P. C. :

1. By the present Petition, the challenge is to the order dated 26 th

September, 2025 intimated on 18th November, 2025 in second RTS

Appeal No. 138 of 2024 passed by the Additional Collector, Satara.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that in the

earlier round of litigation, by order dated 13 th October, 2025, direction

was sought from this Court to decide the pending representation and

Appeal, which directions came to be issued. He submits that a back

dated order dated 26th September, 2025 was passed by Respondent No.

2, and therefore, the present Petition has been filed.

3. We have perused the prayers sought in the present Petition.

Arya Chavan 1 of 2
44-WP-2041-2026.doc

4. The Petition raises a challenge to the judgment and order dated

26th September, 2025 and direction to decide the second RTS Appeal

No. 138 of 2024 afresh and on its own merits.

5. It appears from the record that at the time of passing of the order

dated 13th October, 2025, it was not brought to the notice of this Court

that the second RTS Appeal was already decided on 26 th September,

2025. We do not find from the record that the same is ante-dated, and

there is no reason for Respondent No. 2-Collector to ante-date the

order.

6. As the challenge in the present case is to the order dated 26 th

September, 2025, to which an alternate remedy is available, the Petition

is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to adopt appropriate

proceedings in accordance with law.

7. Needless to clarify that we have not gone into the merits of the

matter, and as such all rights and contentions of all parties are expressly

kept open to be decided in accordance with law.

[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

Arya Chavan 2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…