Bombay High Court
Harshbahadur Jaskaransingh Thakur vs Collector Of Palghar on 2 July, 2024
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2024:BHC-AS:25863-DB
901-(iv)-WP.13943.2023
Jvs.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13943 of 2023
Harshbahadur Jaskaransingh }
Thakur & Anr. } Petitioners
versus
State of Maharashtra, through }
Collector, Palghar } Respondent
Mr. Harshbahadur J. Thakur, petitioner
no. 1 in-person.
Mr. N. K. Rajpurohit, AGP for State.
CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. &
AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATE: 2nd JULY 2024
P.C.:
1. Heard petitioner no. 1, who appears in-person and the learned AGP.
2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has been instituted with the following prayer: -
"a) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass necessary orders to the respondent, to change the records of rights & registers, maintain under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, of the land identified as survey number 81/1/5 and add the additional land admeasuring area 00.60.00 hectare to the name of Petitioner Number 1, of this petition; in the interest of justice, to do complete justice."
3. The prayer made in the writ petition is for issuing a direction to correct the land record entries in terms of the provisions contained in the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereafter referred to as "MLRC").
1 ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2024 01:44:58 :::901-(iv)-WP.13943.2023
4. On a query made to the petitioner no. 1, who appears in- person, he has stated that on an application preferred by him under section 155 of MLRC, the Tahsildar concerned has passed an order rejecting his prayer for correction of the records by passing an order probably in December 2022. Admittedly, against the order passed under section 155 of MLRC, the statutory remedy of appeal available to the person aggrieved by such an order is to invoke section 247 of MLRC.
5. On being asked as to why this petition may not be dismissed as having been rendered infructuous as the application filed by the petitioner seeking correction of the land records has been rejected and he has not availed the remedy of appeal available to him under section 247 of MLRC, petitioner no. 1 states that it is a matter of his fundamental rights and once under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1982, it is the duty of the Collector and other authorities to have corrected the records and by not doing so, he is deprived of his fundamental rights.
6. It is well settled that remedy of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary remedy and ordinarily, the person approaching the Court invoking our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to first exhaust the other remedies available, especially in a situation where the alternate remedy is statutory in nature. In case we by-pass the statutory remedies available and start entertaining such writ petitions, that will not be in the interest of public policy.
2 ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2024 01:44:58 :::901-(iv)-WP.13943.2023
7. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under section 247 of MLRC, if he so desires, against the order passed by the Tahsildar concerned, whereby, it is said, his application seeking correction in the revenue record has been rejected. In case such an appeal is filed, the proceedings thereof shall be expedited by the appellate authority and the same shall be concluded within a period of six months from the date such an appeal is preferred to the appellate authority.
8. At this juncture, the petitioner submits that this Court is custodian of his fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 31 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the petition cannot be disposed of in the terms it has been disposed of by this Court. He further states that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not discretionary; rather, it is the duty of the Court to entertain such petitions where violation of any fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution of India is urged.
9. We are afraid, we cannot persuade ourselves to agree with such submission made by the petitioner. It is a simple case where the grievance of the petitioner, initially, at the time of filing of this petition, was that the revenue records contain certain wrong entries. During the pendency of the writ petition, his application seeking correction of revenue records, made by him under section 155 of the MLRC, has been rejected and as such, in our opinion, the remedy which the petitioner needs to invoke is that of filing a statutory appeal available to him under section 247 of the MLRC.
3 ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2024 01:44:58 :::901-(iv)-WP.13943.2023
10. Thus, the said submissions of the petitioner have been considered, which merits rejection and which are hereby rejected.
Digitally signed by JAYANT JAYANT VISHWANATH VISHWANATH SALUNKE SALUNKE Date: 2024.07.03 11:02:16 +0530 (AMIT BORKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) 4 ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2024 01:44:58 :::