Remedies under Section 143 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code against Tahsildar’s right-of-way decision—statutory appeal or civil suit—are mutually exclusive; electing appeal bars suit, even if withdrawn, due to merger and election doctrine.

JUDGMENT :

SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

1. Heard both sides finally.

2. Applicants are challenging order below Exhibit-19 passed on 30.07.2025 refusing to reject the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.525 of 2024. The suit was filed by respondent nos.4 to 6 for declaration that the order dated 15.02.2023 passed in Rasta Case No.24 of 2020 by the Tahsildar is bad in law.

3. Applicants – defendants sought rejection of plaint vide application Exhibit-19 on the ground of maintainability of the suit under Section 143 of the MAHARASHTRA LAND REVENUE CODE , 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) and that the suit is barred by limitation in view of Section 143 (4) of the Code. It was contested by respondent nos.4 to 6. The application is rejected by the impugned order.

4. Mr. Jiwan J. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the suit for challenging order dated 15.02.2023 in Rasta Case No.24 of 2020 is not tenable as recourse to remedy of RTS Appeal no.79 of 2023 was being taken. It is submitted that the remedies provided by the Code under Section 143 of the Code are mutually exclusive. It is further submitted that the suit has not been filed within one year from the date of the order of Tahsildar which is barred by Section 143 (4) of the Code. It is submitted that the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in Jarasand s/o Suryabhan Borkar vs. Bhagwat s/o Suryakant Kale and Others in Civil Revision Application No.146 of 2022 is distinguishable on facts and will not help the respondent.

5. Per contra, Ms. Suvarna Zaware, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 to 6 would submit that it is not the limitation provided under Section 143 (4) that would apply, but the suit is governed by Article 58 and 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. She would submit that the limitation would start from the date of the order of the Appellate Authority and it is recurring. It is further submitted that it is the choice of the party either to prefer the appeal under the Code or to file the suit. It cannot be said that there is no cause of action and the suit is not tenable. It is further submitted that respondent nos.2 to 4 have no any other remedy available and they are bonafide prosecuting their suit. It is further submitted that in view of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period during which RTS Appeal No.79 of 2023 remained pending needs to be excluded.

6. The controversy between the litigating sides pertains to the easement to approach their respective lands. The applicant is the owner of land bearing Gat No.106 and the respondents – plaintiffs are the occupants of Gat Nos.120, 121 and 122 situated at Kaudgaon Athare. The applicant had filed Rasta Case No.24 of 2020 under Section 143 of the Code before the Tahsildar. His application was allowed on merits, vide judgment dated 15.02.2023 holding that he was having easement and the same shall not be obstructed by the respondent – plaintiff. Being aggrieved, RTS Appeal No.79 of 2023 was preferred before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Application Exhibit-5 was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 10.06.2024. Later on, the respondents withdrew the appeal on 20.08.2024.

7. In this backdrop, respondent nos.4 to 6 have filed Regular Civil Suit No.525 of 2024 on 28.06.2024, challenging the order dated 15.02.2023 passed by the Tahsildar in Rasta Case No.24 of 2020. The suit was not immediately filed after the adjudication by t