Bombay High Court
BAPU BABU SURWASEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records.
Summary
The petitioners challenged an order dated 01.11.2022 of the District Superintendent of Land Records, Osmanabad, which allowed an appeal filed by respondents 4 and 5. They filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking relief against that order. The respondents argued that the petitioners had an alternative remedy – an appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records – and therefore the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court held that because an alternative statutory remedy was available, the petition could not be entertained and dismissed it. The petitioners were directed to file the appeal within eight weeks, with the time spent on the petition to be considered for limitation, and the interim order of 24.01.2023 was left in force pending the appellate decision.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy is available
- Whether the High Court should entertain the petition in view of the alternative appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records
Subjects
- writ petition
- alternative remedy
- land records
- appeal
- limitation
- interim order
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:3547
107-WP-694-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
107 WRIT PETITION NO. 694 OF 2023
Bapu Babu Surwase and Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Revenue Department And Others
…..
Mr. Sarwade (Patil) D. D., Advocate for the Petitioners
Mrs. D. S. Jape, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State
Mr. S. A. Wakure, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5
…..
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 28.01.2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 01.11.2022
passed by the learned District Superintendent of Land Record,
Osmanabad, whereby Appeal filed by Respondent Nos.4 and 5 came to
be allowed.
3. The learned Counsel Mr. S. A. Wakure for Respondent Nos.4 and
5 raised a preliminary objection as regards the tenability of the Petition
by pointing out that against the impugned order, the Petitioners have
an alternative remedy of filing an Appeal before the Deputy Director of
Land Records.
4. In view of availability of alternate remedy, I am not inclined to
entertain the present Petition and the same is disposed of accordingly.
1
107-WP-694-2023.odt
5. The Petitioners are at liberty to file an Appeal before the Deputy
Director of Land Records within a period of eight weeks from today.
6. If the Petitioners file the Appeal within a period of eight weeks
from today, the time spent in prosecuting the present Petition shall be
taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority while deciding the
issue of limitation.
7. The interim order passed by this Court on 24.01.2023 shall
continue till the Appellate Authority decides the Appeal on its own
merits.
8. If the Petitioners file the Appeal within the aforesaid period, the
Deputy Director of Land Records shall decide the same on its own
merits within a period of six months from today.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Sameer/January-2026
2
Checking your session…