IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.141 of 1999. Date of decision:03.06.2008. Dagu Ram ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P.& Others ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.Ashwani K.Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents-1&2: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For Respondents-: Mr.Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. 3(a) to 3(i) & 3(k). For Respondent-3(j): Mr.Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J.: The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 17.5.1994 passed by Consolidation Officer (Annexure P-5), order dated 22.10.1996 passed by the Settlement Officer (Annexure P-3), and the order dated 3.6.1997 passed by the Additional Director Consolidation Holding (Annexure P- 4). It is undisputed that the order dated 22.10.1996 passed by the Settlement Officer was 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 subject matter of challenge before the Additional Director Consolidation exercising powers under Section 54 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, which revision petition filed by the petitioner herein was not accepted. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a number of submissions touching the legality of the orders passed, but those need not be considered in view of the reply which has been filed by the contesting respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn my attention to the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Himachal Pradesh in Case No.479/03, filed on 15.9.2003 and decided on 6.5.2004 (Annexure R-3/1). This was an order passed in appeal under Section 14(b) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) Bilaspur, dated 22.10.1996 (Annexure P-3 in this writ petition) and the order of the Additional Director of Consolidation passed on 3.6.1997 (Annexure P-4 in this writ petition). Dagu Ram-petitioner was present in Court when the case was taken up. He made a statement before the Divisional Commissioner that he does not wish to pursue the appeal as the suit land is subject matter of pending civil proceedings in Court No.1 at Mandi. 3 The petitioner having availed of an alternate remedy and deliberately having abandoned it not on the ground that the writ petition was pending, but on the ground that a Civil Court was seized of the matter, cannot now be allowed to urge them in the present petition. Not only would this preempt the pending civil proceedings but it would also give a handle to the petitioner for forum hunting and pursuing parallel remedies which is not permissible in law. It is by now well settled that a party cannot be given liberty of forum hunting which is nothing but abuse of the process of law, nor can parallel remedies be allowed to be pursued by the petitioner except under exceptional circumstances which this case does not disclose. (See: Jai Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (1977)1 SCC 1 and Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P. Gwalior and Others, (1987)1 SCC 5.) In view of this, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. June 3, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.