- (1.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.6.1999 passed in proceedings under Section 122 -B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the order dated 20.10.1999 passed in proceedings under Section 122 -B (4A) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act.
(2.) SHRI Badarul Hasan, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition and has placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 6 ADJ 386 wherein it has been held that in the proceedings arising under section 122 -B 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 but a writ petition is not maintainable.
(3.) 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 122 -B 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 of file civil suit for appropriate relief in accordance with law, if they are so advised. 20.So far as the conflicting judgments of learned single Judge in Sewak Shankar and in Shankar Saran are concerned, we find that the earlier says if revision is filed, suit cannot be filed, when the later says that the remedy of revision before the Collector would not deprive the remedy of suit, with a recommendation to the Legislature to make the necessary amendments. In our view, amendment or no amendment, the law is very clear from its plain reading. In case a revision from an order of Assistant Collector is filed before the Collector, it will not stand in the way of an aggrieved of a revisional order to file a suit before the Court. Incidently later view is more acceptable. Hence, the conflict stands resolved by the view taken and interpretation of the Act given by us as above keeping in mind the intention of the Legislature." In view of the above legal position settled by this Court, this writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.;