Kamal Kishore, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been preferred for quashing the orders dated 10.12.1998 and 16.10.1999, passed by the then S.D.M., Musafirkhana and Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, which are Annexures-3 and 4 respectively.
(2.) I have heard arguments and have gone through the record.
(3.) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the opposite-parties that the alternative remedies have already been availed of by the parties before the learned S.D.M. etc. in appeal, hence the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as alleged, that the alternative remedy in mutation orders is not barred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the ruling in Puran Singh v. Board of Revenue, U. P., Allahabad and Ors., 2004 (1) AWC 853 : 2004 (22) LCD 494. This ruling is, however, not applicable to the facts of the case. In that ruling, the exception to the Bar of the alternative remedy is mentioned : "Exception has been categorized in cases where (i) the order is without jurisdiction, (ii) the rights and title already decided by competent court had been varied by mutation courts, and (iii) mutation directed not on basis of possession or simply on the basis of some title deed but after entering into debate of entitlement to succeed the property, touching into the merits of rival claim.";