IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 72 of 2004 Date of decision: 13.5.2008 Randhir Singh and others Petitioners. Versus Sub Divisional Collector, Una and others. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent No.1. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General For the respondent No.2. Mr. H.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. When the petition was taken up for hearing a preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioners in as much as an appeal lies against the impugned order under Section 10 of the Himachal Pradesh Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1976 (in short the Act). Therefore, at this stage I am not entering into the merits of the case. Section 10 of the Act reads as follows:- 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 10. Appeal.- An appeal shall lie from an original or appellate order made under this Act, as follows, namely:- (a) to the Commissioner when the order is made by a Collector; (b) to the Financial Commissioner when the order is made by the Commissioner; Provided that when an original order is confirmed on first appeal a further appeal shall not lie. It is apparent from the reading of the said Act that any order made by the Collector is appealable in terms of Section 10 supra. Shri Subhash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the matter has been pending since the year 2004 and that it was admitted without objection being raised and therefore, it may be heard on merits. The contention of Shri Subhash Sharma that since the petition has been admitted, the plea of alternative remedy cannot be permitted to be raised is without any force. The petition was admitted before notices were issued to the respondents. After notice they had a right to raise all legal objections, which may be available to them. They have raised the plea that an alternative remedy is available. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, I dispose of the present petition by holding that the same is not maintainable in view of the fact that there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioners. The limitation for filing an appeal is 60 days. The order in question was passed on 25th August, 2003. Petitioners applied for the copy of the order on 10.09.2003, the same was attested on 7.11.2003 and the same was delivered on 10.11.2003. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed on 22.3.2004. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have been pursuing their remedy before this Court, I am of the opinion that the limitation should not come in the way of the petitioners in case they file an appeal. Therefore, in case the petitioners file the appeal to the Commissioner within 30 days from today, the same shall be treated to be within limitation. Petition disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Dasti copy. 13th May, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™