// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.586/2003 Suva Lal S/o Narayan Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan and Others ...Respondents Date of Order ::: 14.03.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Gajendra Bhawan, Advocate, for Shri Anoop Dhand, Counsel for petitioner Shri Ashish Jain, Dy. G.A., for respondents No.1 to 4 Shri J.P. Gargey, Counsel for respondent No.5 #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer:- “(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents, its officers, engineers and servants may kindly be restrained from constructing Johadi on the land of the petitioner i.e. Khasra No.1314 situated at Dhani Chhipaliwali, Tan Deepawas, District Sikar. (ii) Any other beneficial order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” The above prayer of the petitioner shows that his grievance is that the respondents are raising construction of Johadi on the land of the petitioner i.e. Khasra No.1314. The petitioner, In Para No.4 of the writ petition, has pleaded that the father of the petitioner filed a revenue suit against the respondents for // 2 // declaration and permanent injunction, in the Court of S.D.O., Neem-Ka-Thana, with a prayer that it may be declared that the petitioner is a 'khatedar' cultivator of this land bearing Khasra No.1314 and the S.D.O. passed an order dated 29th August, 2000, to maintain the status-quo and the said stay order has been extended from time to time. The respondents No.1 to 4, in Para No.4 of their reply, have admitted that the revenue suit filed by the petitioner is pending in the Court of S.D.O., Neem-Ka- Thana. In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner's father has already availed of the alternative remedy by way of suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which is pending in the competent court with the same prayer which has been made in the present writ petition and during the pendency of that suit he has also filed the present writ petition, which shows that for one prayer the petitioner and his father have availed two remedies i.e. the revenue suit as well as the writ petition. It is a settled law that normally where alternative remedy is available then extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution should not be invoked. The petitioner has alternative remedy by way of suit for declaration and permanent injunction and his father has already availed of that remedy and the revenue suit is said to be pending, therefore, in these circumstances, the present writ petition cannot be entertained and the same is liable to be dismissed only on this ground alone. I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//