IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1705 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 26, 2011 Mohammad Iqbal ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.S.S.Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Jattana, Addl.A.G.Punjab, for the State. Mr.Animesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.10. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to implement the judgment dated 4.12.1991 in the letter and spirit, vide which the suit for specific performance of the petitioner has been decreed with possession qua 240 Bighas of land being 4800/348549 share out of the total land measuring 17427 Bighas 9 Biswas comprised in Khewat as mentioned in the petition. It appears that numbers of jamabandi were subsequently changed, which, according to the petitioner will not have effect on the decree passed by the civil court. The petitioner was directed by the civil court to approach the revenue authorities for execution of the decree. The matter came up for hearing before the Collector after the decision passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. The Collector taking into consideration the case of mutation has held that the Civil Writ Petition No.1705 of 2008 (O&M) : 2 : appeal will lie before Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner, however, remanded the case back to the Collector. The Collector has held that khasra numbers of mutation in question with those of civil suit No.169 dated 14.12.1988/9.5.1990 and sale deed dated 2.12.1998 executed by the Local Commissioner appointed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rupnagar do not tally and has rejected the appeal. Instead of approaching the Commissioner against this order, which remedy was available to the petitioner, he has approached this court through the present writ petition. Since the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available to him, it would be appropriate for him to first invoke that remedy before invoking jurisdiction of this court. The petitioner accordingly is relegated to his remedy of revision before the Commissioner, who shall consider the same as early as possible and decide the prayer in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. July 26, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE