Bombay High Court

SAMBHAJI VENKATRAO JADHAVversusSUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The writ petition is not maintainable where an alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act exists, and it is dismissed.

Summary

Petitioner Sambhaji Venkatrao Jadhav filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 16‑02‑2023 of the Presiding Officer, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re‑Settlement Authority, Aurangabad, which rejected his objection. The respondent State, through its AGP, raised a preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court examined whether the existence of that statutory appeal barred the writ petition. Finding that an alternative remedy was indeed available, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition and disposed of it, directing the petitioner to pursue an appeal before the competent authority. The Court also noted that time spent on the petition would be considered when assessing limitation for any subsequent appeal.

Issues considered

What is the maintainability of a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is available?

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 18

Subjects

writ petition
maintainability
alternative remedy
Land Acquisition Act
Section 18
limitation

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:3548
                                                                     114-WP-3143-2023.odt


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                         114 WRIT PETITION NO. 3143 OF 2023

                               Sambhaji Venkatrao Jadhav
                                         VERSUS
               Sub Divisional Officer Land Acquisition Officer And Another

                                           …..
          Mr. Shinde Ashish Balaji, Advocate for the Petitioner
          Mrs. D. S. Jape, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State
          Ms. Ranjita Barhate h/f Mr. Yuvraj R. Barhate, Advocate for
          Respondent No.2
                                           …..
                                       CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                       DATE       : 28.01.2026
          PER COURT :

          1.    Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.


          2.    By way of the present petition, the Petitioner assails the order
          dated 16.02.2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, Land Acquisition,
          Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Authority, Aurangabad, whereby
          objection raised by the Petitioner came to be rejected.


          3.    The learned AGP raised a preliminary objection as regards the
          maintainability of the Petition by pointing out that the Petitioner has
          an alternative remedy of filing an Appeal under Section 18 of the Land
          Acquisition Act.

          4.    In view of availability of alternate remedy, I am not inclined to
          entertain the present Petition and the same is disposed of accordingly.


          5.    The Petitioner is at liberty to file an Appeal before the Competent
          Authority.
                                              1
                                                           114-WP-3143-2023.odt


6.      The time spent in prosecuting the present Petition shall be taken
into consideration while consideration the question of limitation, if the
Petitioner files the Appeal.




                                        [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]



Sameer/January-2026




                                    2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…