WP109-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.109 OF 2011 The Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd & Anr .. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Milind Sathe i/by B. Munim & Co for the petitioners. Ms.Geeta Shastri, A.G.P for the State. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 31st January 2011 P.C. 1] Heard Mr.Sathe, Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and Ms.Shastri, learned AGP. She raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition and submits that the order passed on 16th November 2010 together with Corrigendum dated 22nd January 2011 is appeallable and appeal lies in terms of Schedule “E” and Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. 2] Mr.Sathe submits that the petitioner has raised a challenge to the validity and legality of the notification and, therefore, that issue cannot be decided in the proceedings which may be instituted under the Land WP109-10 2 Revenue Code, including the Appeal to the State Government. His submission is that the notification dated 6th March 2008 itself is liable to be quashed and set aside and, therefore, no action could have been based thereon, much less, recovery of the Non Agricultural Assessment. 3] To my mind, the petitioner has raised several issues apart from this challenge. The other issues are purely factual as is clear from the grounds in the petition. Therefore, merely because the order is appeallable and the petitioner avails of that alternate equally efficacious remedy of an appeal does not mean that the Court has expressed any opinion on the issue of legality, validity and constitutionality of the notification dated 6th November 2008. 4] Keeping that challenge open for being raised at an appropriate stage and considering that the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code provides for several appeals, it would not be proper to interfere at this stage. More so, when the petitioner is not averse to filing of the appeal. 5] In the light of the provisions brought to my notice by Ms.Shastri and considering that the issues raised in the petition other than the one noticed above can be raised before the Appellate Authority so also WP109-10 3 not foreclosing the question of the validity and legality of the notification, the petition can be disposed of on the ground that the petitioner has an equally efficacious and alternate remedy of filing an appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Maharashtra State. 6] If the petitioner files an appeal to the said authority within a period of four weeks from today the said appeal will be entertained and decided on merits condoning the delay in filing the same. If the same is not filed within this period, then, the Authority will have to be satisfied by the petitioner with regard to the delay that has occurred in filing the same. 7] It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on any of the contentions raised in the petition and all grounds and contentions so also pleas based thereon are available to be raised by both sides. 8] At this stage, Mr.Sathe prays that the ad-interim order dated 16th December 2010 be continued and no coercive measures may be permitted to be initiated for recovery of land revenue. 9] Ms.Shastri submits that the Appellate Authority would endeavour and dispose of the matter expeditiously, if the appeal is filed, WP109-10 4 and the Court may stipulate the time in that behalf. 10] In these circumstances and in the larger interest of justice, if the appeal is filed as directed above, the same shall be disposed of by the Appellate Authority within three months from the date of its filing and till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive measures be taken to recover the land revenue. Petition disposed of accordingly. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)