Bombay High Court
RAJESH T. DUBEY CONSTITUTED ATTORNERY OF MUKTESHWAR SAHAKARI SOCIETY LTD.versusTHE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA THRO. THE OFFICE OF THE GOVT. PLEADER
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- M S KARNIKS M MODAK
Holding
The Court held that the writ petition cannot be entertained because the disputes are factual and pending before the revenue authorities, and the petitioner must pursue the statutory remedy under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
Summary
The petition, filed by Shri Rajesh T. Dubey as attorney for Shri Mukteshwar Sahakari Society Ltd., challenges two orders: one dated 14 March 2024 by the Collector revoking a grant to Respondent No.4, and another dated 11 October 2024 creating rights over 164 acres in favour of Respondent No.5. The petitioner seeks certiorari to cancel both orders and a direction for a proper hearing. The Court noted that the land dispute is already before the revenue machinery, with appeals and revisions pending under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Because the matters involve factual disputes and pending statutory proceedings, the Court held it could not adjudicate the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition was disposed, with the Court directing the petitioner to pursue the appropriate statutory remedies under the MLR Code.
Issues considered
- The validity of the Collector’s order dated 14 March 2024 revoking the grant to Respondent No.4.
- The legality of the Government Resolution dated 11 October 2024 creating rights over the land in favour of Respondent No.5.
- Whether the petitioner can obtain relief through a writ of certiorari or must resort to statutory remedies under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 — s. 247, 257
Subjects
- writ of certiorari
- land revenue
- revocation of grant
- government resolution
- statutory remedy
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
Judgment
14-IA(ST)-8659-2026-IN-WP-3343-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by SATISH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.8659 OF 2026
RAMCHANDRA
SATISH
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR
SANGAR
Date:
2026.04.10
IN
20:35:27
+0530 WRIT PETITION NO.3343 OF 2026
Shri Rajesh T. Dubey the Constituted
Attorney of Shri Mukteshwar Sahakari
Society Ltd. (Proposed) ...Applicant
In the matter between:-
Shri Rajesh T. Dubey the Constituted
Attorney of Shri Mukteshwar Sahakari
Society Ltd. (Proposed) ...Petitioner
V/s.
The Government of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
*****
Mr.Ram Apte (Sr.Advocate) i/b. Mr.Dhananjay Athavale and
Mr.Harshal P. Nahata, Advocates for Applicant/Petitioner.
Smt.G.R.Raghuwanshi, AGP, for Respondents-State.
Mr.Kaustubh Thipsay, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
Mr.Ravindra Kadam (Sr.Counsel) a/w Mrs.Rati Patni and Mr.Vikrant
Dere i/b. Wadia Ghandy and Company, Advocates for Respondent
No.5.
*****
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 10th APRIL 2026
ORAL ORDER ( PER : M.S.KARNIK, J.) :
Satish Sangar 1/7
14-IA(ST)-8659-2026-IN-WP-3343-2026.doc
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.8659 OF 2026
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate for the Applicant.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the Application, the Application is
allowed. The order dated 18th March 2026 is recalled and the Petition
is restored to the file.
WRIT PETITION NO.3343 OF 2026
3. Heard learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, learned Senior
Advocate for Respondent No.5, learned AGP and learned counsel for
Respondent No.4.
4. This Petition prays for the following substantial reliefs:-
“(b) that the Honourable Court will be pleased to issue writ of
certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and
proceedings pertaining to the impugned order dated 14th
March, 2024 and after going through the same be further
pleased to cancel, rescind and revoke the said impugned order
dated 14th March, 2024 by which the Respondent no.3
revoked and terminated the grant of the Respondent No.4.
(c) that the Honourable Court will be pleased to issue the writ of
certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and
Satish Sangar 2/7
14-IA(ST)-8659-2026-IN-WP-3343-2026.doc
proceedings pertaining to the impugned order dated 11th
October, 2024 being Exhibit E to this petition and after
examining the same will further be pleased to cancel, rescind
and revoke the said impugned order dated 11 th October, 2024
by which the Respondent no.3 created the right, title and
interest over the said land of 164 acres 21 Gunthas described
hereinabove in favour of the Respondent no.5.
(d) that the Honourable Court will be pleased to order and direct
the Respondent nos.1 to 3 to give proper hearing to the
Petitioner before passing any order relating to the land
admeasuring about 164 acres 21 Gunthas bearing Survey
no.218 and Survey no.263(part) both of village Malwani,
Taluka Borivali in the registration district of Mumbai
Suburban.”
5. Shri.Kadam, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent No.5
raised preliminary objection that against the order dated 14 th March
2024, the Petitioner can avail of appropriate remedies under the
provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (“MLR Code”)
by filing appropriate proceedings under Section 247 of the said Act.
6. The Petitioner claims to be a constituted attorney of Shri
Mukteshwar Sahakari Society Ltd. The dispute is about the land which
is subject matter of the Petition between the Petitioner as well as the
Satish Sangar 3/7
14-IA(ST)-8659-2026-IN-WP-3343-2026.doc
Respondent No.4. The Respondent No.4 is Shri Mukteshwar Vividh
Karyakari Seva Co-operative Society Ltd.
7. Shri.Ram Apte, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner
invited our attention to the averments made in the Writ Petition. He
submits that the land parcel was handed over to the Petitioner for the
housing scheme and thus did not continue to vest with the Respondent
No.4.
8. Suffice it to observe that what is under challenge in this Petition
is the order dated 14th March 2024 passed by the Collector, Mumbai
Suburban. It is pertinent to note that the Respondent No.4 had
challenged the very same order dated 14th March 2024 by way of
Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division. The
Additional Commissioner by the order dated 5 th August 2024 decided
the Appeal filed by the Respondent No.4. Against the order passed by
the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, the Respondent No.4
preferred a Revision before the Hon’ble Revenue Minister. It is pointed
out by the learned counsel for Respondent No.4 that even the Revision
Application filed before the Hon’ble Minister has been dismissed and
Satish Sangar 4/7
14-IA(ST)-8659-2026-IN-WP-3343-2026.doc
the Respondent No.4 is in the process of challenging the said order in
this Court.
9. As a consequence of the order passed by the Additional
Commissioner, in the meantime, a Government Resolution dated 11 th
October 2024 was issued which is also the subject matter of challenge
in this Petition by the Petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the
Respondent No.4 had challenged the order passed by the Additional
Commissioner in this Court when the following order came to be
passed on 14th December 2024:-
“1. Heard Mr.Thipsay, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Ms.Jyoti Chavan, learned, Additional G,P. for
the State.
2. Ms.Chavan, learned Additional G.P., on instructions, states
that the Revision Application filed under Section 257 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 challenging the
Order dated 5th August 2024 passed by Additional
Commissioner, Konkan Division, at Mumbai in Appeal
being No.Appeal/Desk/LND/205/2024 will be disposed
within a period of four months from today.
3. Ms.Chavan points out Clause No.6 of the Government
Resolution dated 11th October 2024 wherein it is provided
Satish Sangar 5/7
14-IA(ST)-8659-2026-IN-WP-3343-2026.doc
that the decision taken by the said G.R. will be subject to the
result of the decision of the Hon’ble Minister, Revenue
concerning the Revision Applications filed with respect to
the subject land and also decisions of the Courts in further
proceedings.
4. Thus, it is clarified that further steps taken if any, pursuant to
the said G.R. dated 11th October 2024 will be subject to the
result of the said Revision as well as decision of Court in
further proceedings.
5. The Hon’ble Revenue Minister is directed to decide the said
Revision Application without being influenced by the G.R.
dated 11th October 2024.
6. The Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms with no
order as to costs”.
10. In such view of the matter, we find that as there are several
disputed questions of facts involved in the present Petition, it is not
possible for us to enter into the adjudication thereof for the present.
The Petitioner has to avail of the alternate efficacious statutory remedy
of challenging the order dated 14th March 2024 before the appropriate
forum. It is pertinent to note that on the basis that the possession of
land in question was with the Respondent No.4, notices were issued to
the Respondent No.4. Shri.Apte, learned Senior Advocate submitted
Satish Sangar 6/7
14-IA(ST)-8659-2026-IN-WP-3343-2026.doc
that the Petitioner was not in receipt of any notice nor was aware of the
order dated 14th March 2024 passed by the Collector. This according to
learned counsel for Respondent No.4 was because the Petitioner had
no concern with the said land. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the
order passed by the Collector on 14 th March 2024, the remedy is to
resort to appropriate proceedings challenging the said order under the
proceedings of MLR Code.
11. Keeping all contentions open for the Petitioner to avail of the
alternate efficacious remedies under the MLR Code or any other
appropriate remedy to challenge the impugned order, the Petition is
disposed of. We have not expressed any opinion on the rival
contentions.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Satish Sangar 7/7
Checking your session…