( 1 ) D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.625/1996 (Mohd. Hussain Vs. Municipal Board & Ors.) Date : 10.07.2007 HON'BLE MR. P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Mr. A.K. Acharya for the appellant(s). Mr. D.S. Rajvi for respondent No.1. Mr. S.G. Ojha for respondents. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25.07.1996 delivered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2383/1986, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition in limine. The appellant-original petitioner before the learned Single Judge filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Collector, Churu dated 11.09.1986, which was annexed as Annexure-3 in the petition. By the said order, the Collector cancelled the registered sale deed dated 27.08.1984, issued in favour of the present appellant. The Collector found that the said sale deed is null and void. The said decision of the Collector, Churu was challenged before the learned Single Judge by filing a writ petition. ( 2 ) The learned Single Judge after perusal of the order of the Collector came to the conclusion that alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the present petitioner by way of civil suit before the civil court and further observed that such matters cannot be decided by this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the aforesaid ground the petition was dismissed. Before the learned Single Judge, on behalf of the appellant a reference was made to the decision of this Court delivered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1341/1996 decided on 13.07.1984, wherein it has been held by this Court that the sale effected by the registered document cannot be set aside by the executive fiat of the Government and in that view of the matter the decision of the aurthority was set aside by this Court. Learned Single Judge further found that the facts of that case were not stated in the order and it is a small order. Learned Single Judge accordingly dismissed the aforesaid petition against which this special appeal is filed. ( 3 ) Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ petition was already admitted in the year 1986 and, therefore, after a period of ten years, it should not have been dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. He submitted that in the case of Udai Narain Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in AIR 1971, Supreme Court, 33, it is held that when a writ petition was admitted, it should not be rejected on the ground that the statutory remedy was not availed of. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the writ petition has rightly been dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the order of the learned Single Judge whereby on the ground of alternative and efficacious remedy the petition was dismissed even after a period of ten years of its admission and not heard on merits. ( 4 ) In the above circumstances, in our view, learned Single Judge has committed error while dismissing the writ petition. Thus, the order dated 25.07.1996 passed by learned Single is required to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of learned Single Judge dated 25.07.1996 is set aside. The matter is remanded back for deciding the petition afresh on merits. The points raised in the petition are kept open for both the sides. (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. (P.B.MAJMUDAR), J. vij