BHAGIRATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition seeking the relief to quash the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation, Suratgarh dated 11-7l979 and 6-12-1982 vide Annxs. 6 and 8 respectively passed in favour of respondent No. 5 for making allotment of the land in his favour and for directing issuance of 'Patta' in pursuance of the order dated 11-7-1979. The petitioners are further seeking relief by means of the instant writ petition for quashing the order dated 6-12-1982 (Annx. 9) to the writ petition passed by the same authority rejecting the application of the petitioner No. 2 for permanent allotment of the surplus land of petitioner No. 1.

(2.) After service of the notices, respondent No. 5 has filed counter-affidavit, denying the allegations made in the writ petition. A preliminary objection is raised on behalf of respondent No. 5 that against the impugned orders mentioned above, the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing an appeal and revision as contemplated under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Rajasthan Canal Project Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1975').

(3.) The aforesaid fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that against the impunged orders, an appeal and revision are maintainable under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1975 but according to the learned counsel, is this question was not raised at the stage of admission and the writ petition was admitted and ad interim stay order was granted, therefore, according to him after admission and after grant of ad interim stay order, the preliminary question of alternative remedy cannot be raised.