The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that an order passed by an authority acting without statutory jurisdiction is void ab initio, rendering the existence of an alternate remedy irrelevant. This ruling clarifies the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when administrative bodies overstep their legal bounds.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners challenged the order dated 12/11/2018 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records, Latur, which condoned the delay in filing an appeal under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The petitioners contended that the District Superintendent lacked the authority to entertain or decide the matter at all, rendering the order legally non-existent.
Key Facts
- The dispute arose from a land revenue matter involving title and possession claims
- Respondents No. 3 to 7 filed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the District Superintendent, Land Records
- The District Superintendent, on 12/11/2018, granted the condonation and proceeded to pass an order on the merits of the appeal
- No statutory provision empowers the District Superintendent to decide substantive appeals under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966
- The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 367 of 2019 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking quashing of the order
Procedural History
- 12/11/2018: District Superintendent, Land Records, Latur passed order condoning delay and deciding appeal in Appeal No. Astha-2/Appeal/SR8/18
- 2019: Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 367 of 2019 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench
- 8th May, 2026: Hearing concluded before Justice Siddheshwar S. Thombre
The Parties' Positions
- Petitioners: Argued that the District Superintendent had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal or condone delay; any such action was ultra vires and void
- Respondents No. 3 to 7: Contended that an appeal lay under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and therefore the writ petition was barred by the doctrine of alternate remedy
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 12/11/2018 passed by the District Superintendent, Land Records, Latur, and a direction to refer the matter to the competent authority, the Deputy Director, Land Records, Aurangabad, for adjudication in accordance with law.
The Legal Issue
Can a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution be entertained when an alternate remedy exists, if the impugned order was passed by an authority acting without jurisdiction?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the District Superintendent of Land Records has no statutory power under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 to entertain appeals or condone delays in filing them. The Code vests such powers exclusively in the Deputy Director, Land Records. Therefore, any order passed by the District Superintendent was a nullity - non est in law. Relying on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner argued that when an authority acts without jurisdiction, the doctrine of alternate remedy does not apply, and the High Court retains inherent power to intervene under Article 226.
For the Respondent
Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 7 contended that Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 provides a clear appellate remedy against orders of the District Superintendent. Therefore, the petitioners were barred from approaching the High Court by the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when an effective alternate remedy exists.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and found no provision conferring upon the District Superintendent the power to decide appeals or condone delays in filing them. The Court noted that the Code requires the District Superintendent to merely collect records and forward matters to the Deputy Director, Land Records, who alone is vested with adjudicatory powers.
"If the authority exercising the powers does not have jurisdiction to entertain the same, as well as if there was violation of principles of natural justice, this Court can certainly interfere with the order passed by the authority who passed the order without jurisdiction."
The Court relied on the precedent set in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks & ors. (1998) 8 SCC 1, which holds that the existence of an alternate remedy does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction when the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that an order passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction is not merely erroneous - it is void ab initio. Such a nullity cannot be validated by the availability of an appellate process under a statute that does not even empower the actor.
The Court further observed that the respondents failed to point to any provision granting the District Superintendent adjudicatory powers. The act of condoning delay and deciding the appeal was therefore an exercise of power never conferred by law, rendering the order legally non-existent.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 12/11/2018 passed by the District Superintendent, Land Records, Latur in Appeal No. Astha-2/Appeal/SR8/18 is quashed and set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Superintendent, Land Records, Latur, who shall, after considering objections from both sides, forward the proposal to the Deputy Director, Land Records, Aurangabad. The Deputy Director shall hear both parties and pass an order in accordance with law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Jurisdictional Defects Render Alternate Remedies Irrelevant
- Practitioners must immediately challenge orders passed by authorities acting beyond their statutory mandate, regardless of whether an appeal lies
- The existence of an appellate remedy under a statute does not cure a jurisdictional void
- Writ petitions under Article 226 remain maintainable even where statutory remedies exist, if the authority lacked power to act
Procedural Forwarding ≠ Adjudicatory Authority
- Officials tasked only with collecting records and forwarding files cannot assume adjudicatory functions
- Any order passed by such officials is ultra vires and void
- Courts will not uphold orders based on procedural delegation without substantive power
Duty to Identify the Correct Forum
- Before filing any appeal, practitioners must verify the statutory hierarchy and the precise powers vested in each officer
- Misdirected appeals do not create jurisdiction; they create nullities
- A petition challenging jurisdictional overreach should be filed promptly as a writ, not delayed awaiting appellate outcomes
