Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Faujdar Rai, Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18-9-2001 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mathura in case No. 700 under Section 42-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Against the impugned order the petitioner has statutory remedy under Section 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has ample jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 18-9-2001 is without jurisdiction since he has bypassed the earlier order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Counsel for the petitioner has further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1998)8 SCC Page 1, Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks , for his submission that this Court can entertain the writ petition even if there is alternative remedy available. The Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to paragraph 15 of the said judgment. I have considered the submission raised by the Counsel for the petitioner. The U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is a special enactment in which forums have been provided for redressal of the grievances under Section 42-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Under Section 48(1) the Deputy Director of Consolidation may call for record, examine the case and correct the error if any error is committed in the proceedings by any subordinate authority. There being statutory remedy available to the petitioner. I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage. As laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has ample jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition even if there is statutory alternative remedy, but in this case I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition as the Deputy Director of Consolidation has ample jurisdiction to set right any wrong committed by any subordinate authority. It will be open to the petitioner to approach the Deputy Director of Consolidation for redressal of his grievance.
(3.) The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.;