SH. C.S. AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM-16243-CWP-2018

(2.) A perusal of Annexure P-11 would go on to show that respondent No.2 referred the matter to the District Judge, Rewari on account of respondent No.5, M/s Rajdhani Nurseries Limited having not accepted the award announced by the said respondent. It is not disputed that the petitioners themselves have also preferred the matter under Sec. 18 of the Act. Petitioners have also filed reference petition under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act in which respondent Nos.5 and 6 have also been arrayed as respondents (Annexure P-14). Various claims have been raised in the said reference petition on account of being a lessor vide the lease agreement dated 30.11.2006 and agreement to sell dated 05.02017 (Annexure P-2) and entitled to get the compensation as per entitlement etc. It is not disputed that the present petition, at this stage, is at the whims and fancies of the petitioner and the matter is yet to be adjudicated upon on merits. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners are wanting this Court to pre-judge the issue as to what was the amount due and whether excess payment as such have been made to the private respondents. It is settled principle that a writ Court would not go into the disputed questions of facts and the matter is yet to be crystalized before the Reference Court as to what is the entitlement inter se the petitioners and the private respondents. Sec. 30 of the Act provides that if dispute arise for the apportionment of the same, the Collector may refer such dispute for the decision of the Civil Court which admittedly has already been done. Once that is so, then the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked, once an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110. It was observed that it was a self imposed restraint and the alternative remedy was a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. The principles laid down read as under:-

(3.) Resultantly, keeping in view the fact that disputed questions arise in the present case and since there is alternative remedy available to the petitioners, this Court does not deem it a fit case to opine upon at this stage. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed in limine.