IN THE H1GH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petltion (CLNo. 4881 pfauOS Petitioner Respondents Versus 1. 9 3. 6. 8. 10. 11. 12. 13, 14. Lalmaai Kurre, aged - 80 years, S/o Kushal, R/o Vffl^e - Bhauiiradadar, Tehsil Saraagarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.), presentily residing at - Vfflage Parsabhafha, Tehsil - Korba, District Korba (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through - the Secretary, Departiaeut of Revenue, Maatralaya, D.K.S. Bhawau, Raipxu'. The Conector, District - Raigarh (C.G.) Sub-Divisional OfHcer (R)/Laud Acquisitiou Officer, Saraiigarh., District - Ra^arh (C.G.) Naib Tehsildar, TefasU - Saraagarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Sub Divisionsl QfScer, Water Resources Sub-Division, Sacangarh, District - Ra^arh (C.G.) Shri Chliufha Ram Sataami, agcd 48 years, Son of Kidt Ram, R/o Village - BhaLmradajdaT, Tehsil - Saraagarh, District Rsdgarh (C.G.) Shri Teeka Ram Sataami, aged 40 years, son of Kirit Ram, R/o Vffiage Bhauitradadar, Tehsil - Sarai^arh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) Gaupat, S/o Labho Satnami, aged 75 years, Vifage - Kotri, TehsU - Sarangarh, District - Ra^arh (C.G.) Dheerajmati, D/o Labho Sataami, ayd 81 years, R/o vUlage - Ghutakipau, Tehsil & District - Raigarh. Paudu, S/'o Kushal Satuami, Siace deceased, R/o ViUage - Jevra, Tehsil Saraagarh, District - Ra^arh. J^dish, S/o Paadey Satoaami, aged - 78 years, R/o Vfflage - Salheona, TehsU Biiaigarh, District - Raipur (C.G.) Smt. Purmnati, D/o Kirit Ram, agsd - 65 years, R/o Kotmara, Tehsil - Saraagarh, District- Rsds.arh (C.G.) Smt. Ganesh Bai, aged - 55 years, W/o sahib Ram., R/o Vulage - Lendbra, T'ehsil - Saraagarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) Smt Rafha Bai @ Rafumati, aged 75 years, W/o Late Kint Ram, R/o Bhauirradadar, Teh.sil - Saraagarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ,#^-h "* /y -^" ""'''''' .<'''. 1 B 3 '^ <sl z- imst te WRIT PE'ITnON.UNDER AKnCLE 226_QETJiE C_ONOTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agiuhotri J.) Shri M. K. Bhaduri, Advocate for fhe petitioner. O R DE R (Passed on this 4th Day of September, 2008) 1. The petitioner has filed this petitmn, im.pugnmg the order dated 19.8.2008 (Annexure P/5), passed by the Sub Dmsional Of&cer (Revenue), Sarangarh, Uistrict - Raigaih in. Keveuue Case No. 58/A-6/2006-07 (Lalmam Vs. Chutha Ram Ss others). 2. 'l'fae brief tacts, in nutshell, necessary tbr disposal of this petition, are tha-t ftie respondents No. 6 aud 7 (Chutba Ram aad Tikara.ca) filed au appBcation betbre ttie Naib Tahsildar, Sarangarh, stating tiiat they are having title aad possession ui respect to the land, situated iu ViUage - Bhauwaradadar, Patwari HaUsa No. 6, Khasra No. 257, area 0.482, Revenue Circle Harali, Tahsil - Saraugarh. Due to iguorance of law, names ot' tfae petitioner (Lalmani) and respondents No. 6 to 14 (Oaapat, DIurajmati, Paudu, Jagdish, Ptmiinati, Gauesh Bai aud Rath Bai) have also been recorded ia the revenue records. Thus, names of the petitioner aad other respoudents be deleted. 'l'tiat appMcation was registered as Revenue Case No. 13-A-6/2005-06. 3. Atter registration of the case noti.cc was issued to the respondents, theiein. Atter receipt of the notice the respondents namely Ganpat, Uturajinati, Pandu appeared betbre the Tahsildar on 10.10.2006 aud submitted their consent. Their stateiuents were also recorded, whereas rest of "t.AB is*-Vi <, ttie respondents did not clioose to appear, despite service of notice. As tfae present petitloner (Lalmani) also did not appear despite receipt of notice, therefore ex-parte proceediag was drawa against him, but later ou he appeared aad subinitted aa application for settiug aside of the ex-parte pioceeding. His ^ application was allowed aad he was afforded an opportunily to subuut Iiis reply. Accordiugty, the petitioner subnutted Iiis reply and denied fhe version of tfae appUcation wifti the prayer to delete the aames ofthe respondeuts No. 6 aud 7. After affording proper opportuiuty to the parties to produce evidence aud to inake their subnussions, the Tahsiklar, Sarangarh by oider dated 13.8.2007/10.08/2007 (Amiexure P/1) allowed fbe appUcation of the respondents No. 6 and 7 and directed deletion of the nanies of the petitioner and respondents, therefroin the revenue records in respect of the petition scheduled laad. Beiag aggrieved, the petitioner preferred aa appeal before the Sub Divisional Of&cer (Revenue), Saraagarh, which was registered as Appeal Case No. 58/A-6/ year 2006-2007. By order dated 14.8.2007 (Annexure P/2) the notice was issued aad stay ofthe order dated 13.8.2007 was graated. Thereafter, the petitioner fUed aa appUcation on 16.8.2007 (Aiuiexure P/4) in the pendiag appeal to restraia the authorities concenied froin issuing cheque to the respondents No. 6 and 7 iu respect of the coinpensatioa awarded towatds acquisition of land. In the impugned order 19.8.2008 (Aimexure P/5) the Sub Divisional 0£6cer/appeUate aufhority, observed fhat iu fhe event, the title of the laad is deaded in lavour of the appellaut "-»S'?tff:, 3 -^- iu land acquisition case, tbc amount ot compensation would be taken finm the respondents No. 6 and 7 (".,, ...^—STuNW'm ^ apftpiraft ^ wr a^wrt firaNur gM ^T fteifir 4 wcqw ri(Ti'«ti414i"i 'it fpiw ufpt^rri '). Being aggneved by (he mterim order ctated 19.8.2008, instead o^ approachiag tbe higher reveuue autborities, or niaking an appUcation for review/modification/ clarification of the order betbre the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), fhe pctitioner has directly filed fhis petition uuder Article 226 ofthe Constitutioa ofliidia. 6. Leamed counsel appeariug for the petitiouer subauts that fhe impugned order is bad in law, perverse and liable to be set-aside, as thc inatter relates to dispute of title of the land, alfhough, the appeUate Court graated stay of the order dated 13.8.2007 passed by the Tahsildar, but exceeded ia directtag to release ttie conipensation amoiuit in lavour of the respondents No. 6 and 7. 7. Haviag lieard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner and haviug gone througti the documents appended tbcreto. The impugned order oiily reflects that atter tilmg of the application dated 16.8.2007 (Aunexure P/4) by tbe petitioner to restraia the aufhorities 6x000. issuin^ cheque of the amount of coinpensation towards acquisition of laad iu favour of ffae respondents Wo. 6 and 7, the Sub Divisional Officer, observed tfaat iu the event, the title of the land is decided in favour of the petitioner/appeUant ia laud acquisition case, fh.e amount of coinpensation would be taken Iroin tfae respondents No. 6 and 7. IIS 8. 10. Thakiu - r. The petitioner, wiUiout availiag the altemative reinedy avaUable to hiTn under law, bas ffled this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreiae Court in Secy. U.P. Higli Scfaool & Intermediate Bducatloa, AUahabad & another v. H.K. Lal1 o^served that ftie writ jurisdiction is discretionaiy jurisdiction aad shoiild not ordiaarilv be exercised it there is an altemative rem.edv. It is weU settled by a catena of decision that nomiaUy the High Court should not interiere if' fhere is an adequate efficacious altemative reinedy where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party m.ust exbaust fbe statutoiy reiaedy before resortmg to writ jitrisdiction, except wheu a veiy strong ease is inade out tbr Diaking a departure. Applying the well settled dicta lakt down by the Hon'ble Supreiae Court in catena of declsions on the issue of avaUabiLity of altemative reinedy to the facts of the case, this petition is dismissed as not inauitainable as no strong case bas been aiade out for exercise of extraordiuary discretionary jurisdiction ia faovur of tbe petitioner. For the reasons xaentioned hereinabove, witfaout expressiag any opinion ou luerits, the petition te disinissed at m.0tion sfe^e. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recouise to the altemative statutoiy forum that may be available to tiim under fhe provisions oflaw, it'so advised. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge '{[2007)2SCC216} Hji igg.;(j