SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel as well as Shri R. N. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 4 and perused the record. Shri R.N. Gupta, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent submits that against the impugned order dated 7.8.2012 (Annexure No. 12) passed by opposite party No. 3/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Akbarpur (now Tehsil Bhiti), District-Ambedkar Nagar, the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of revision under section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, so the present writ petition is not maintainable, liable to be dismissed on the said ground.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner while disputing the abovesaid facts submits that the impugned order has been passed in contravention to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the facts of the case, so the petitioner cannot be delegated the statutory remedy of revision. Hence, the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment given by this Court in the case of Shri Durgadevi Rural and Educational Development Society v. State of U.P. and others.1

(3.) IN view of the abovesaid facts and taking into consideration that once the statutory remedy is available to the petitioner under the statute which governs the field then in that circumstances he should avail the same and writ petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable on the ground of availability of statutory remedy under the statute which governs the field in view of the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the following cases:- In the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Company Limited and another v. State of Orissa and others,1 wherein it was held as under:-