ANIL KUMAR, J. - (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 Admittedly, in the present case the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.8.2012 (Annexure No. 12) passed by opposite party No. 3 and against the said order the statutory remedy is available to the petitioner by way of revision under section 219 of the Land Revenue Act.
(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:- "Where a right or liability is created by statute which give special remedy for enforcing it, that must be availed as the said statute provides a complete machinery in order to challenge the impugned action taken therein in the statute itself and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." In the case of Karnataka Chemical Industries and others v. Union of India and others,2 wherein it was held as under:- "When there is no challenge to the validity of any statutory provision, we see no reason as to why a writ petition should have been filed by passing the alternative remedy which is provided under the statute. On the short ground we dismiss this appeal, vacate the interim orders, direct the payment of the balance amount of duty along with interest @ 15% per annum with yearly rests. It will be open to the appellant to avail of such statutory remedy as may be available to it. If an appeal is filed within four weeks from today, the Department will take a lenient view in condoning the delay." In the case of Central Coalfilds Limited v. State of Jharkhand and others,3 wherein it was held as under:- 1. (1983) 2 SCC 433. 2. (2000) 10 SCC 12. 3. (2005) 7 SCC 492. "If there is statutory alternative remedy available to a person under an statute itself, in that case the writ petition should not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner is directed to avail the alternative statutory remedy." In the case of Kanaiyalal Lal Chand Sachdev and others v. State of Maharashtra and others,4 in para Nos. 23 and 24 held as under:- "Para - 23 - In our opinion, therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy was available to the Appellants under section 17 of the Act. It is well-settled that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person. (See: Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another,5 Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others,6 State Bank of India v. Allied Chemical Laboratories and another?) Para - 24- In City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and others,8 this Court had observed that : The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty- bound to consider whether : (a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; (b) the petition reveals all material facts; (c) the Petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute; (d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches; 4. (2011) 2 SCC 782. 5. (2003) 3 SCC 524. 6. (2003) 6 SCC 675. 7. (2006) 9 SCC 252. 8. (2009)1 SCC 168. (e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation; (f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors." ;