IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 98 OF 2011 M/S. REAL ESTATE AGENCIES THROUGH ITS PARTNER MR. KEDAR RAMAKANT KAKODKAR ... Petitioner Versus GOVT. OF GOA THROUGH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Rajendra V. Pai, Advocate with Ms. Bina Pai, Advocate and Mr. S. Taleigaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kakodkar, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent no.1. Mr. Shivan Dessai, Advocate for Respondent no.2. Mr. S. Usgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent no.5. Coram:- D. G. KARNIK & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 18th August, 2011 P.C. The Petitioner claims to be owner of the open space commonly known as "La Campala" at Miramar, Panaji. According to the Petitioner, without acquiring his land, a tender is proposed for beautification of the land. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner invites our attention to the Order dated 30.06.2010 (Annexure 'D') to the Petition. Condition no.1 of the said Order itself states that the tenders shall not be invited unless the land is acquired. We are thus satisfied that the Respondent is not acting highhandedly but would proceed with the work only after acquisition of the land. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that in the teeth of the condition no.1 of the Order dated 30.06.2010, work has commenced or attempted to be commenced in the said land. If so, the Petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy by way of filing a suit for injunction. This is not a fit case for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India in view of availability of alternate and efficacious remedy. The Petition is therefore rejected with liberty to the Petitioner to pursue his alternate remedy. D. G. KARNIK, J. F. M. REIS, J. arp/*