- (1.) By this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.1.2000 passed by Tehsildar, Sadar, Muzaffarnagar and the revisional order dated 29.11.1997 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue) Muzaffarnagar. I have heard Mohd. Yusuf, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mata Prasad, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
(2.) Shri Mata Prasad has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition and has placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 6 ADJ 386, wherein it has been held that in the proceedings arising under Section 122B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 there is an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of suit whether the order is passed by Assistant Collector or Collector and the writ petition is not maintainable. The relevant paragraph 19 of the said Judgment reads as under: 19. Therefore, according to us, having alternative and efficacious remedy of suit under Section 122B of the Act of 1950, there is no scope for the aggrieved person to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court either from the order of the Assistant Collector or from the order of the Collector. It is clarified hereunder that a self corrective process to invoke the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector, then by way of revision before the Collector and thereafter by filing suit before the Court, is the integral part of the Act. which cannot be avoided. Thus in our considered opinion. contentions of the writ petitioners, cannot be held to be sustainable, consequently, all the aforesaid writ petitions are dismissed without imposing any cost. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, aggrieved persons are at liberty to file civil suit for appropriate relief in accordance with law, if they are so advised.
(3.) In view of the above legal position settled by this Court, this writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order granted by this Court is vacated. The petitioner is at liberty to file civil suit, if he is so advised. If any such suit is filed within one month from today the court below shall decide the same on merits ignoring delay in filing the suit.;