Vijay Bahuguna, J. - (1.) THE State of U. P. has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the quashing of the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge, Jhansi, oa 27th February, 1991 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) enhancing the amount of compensation payable to the respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 from Rs. 31,000/- per acre to Rs. 10,000/- per acre. THE Special Judge had earlier fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per acre, but thereafter on an application moved by respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Special Judge enhanced the compensation on the ground that compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre had been awarded in Reference No. 237 of 1986 Bhagwati Prasad v. State decided on 17-11- 1988 and the appeal filed by the State against the judgment rendered in Reference No 237 of 1986 had been dismissed by the High Court and the Special Leave petition filed by the State of U. P. was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been filed on behalf of respondents no. 2 3 and 4 to the effect that the petitioners had a remedy to file a First Appeal in the High Court against the order and judgment of the Civil Judge and as such the present writ petition was not maintainable. It is admitted by the Standing Counsel that a First Appeal against the order of the Special Judge enhancing compensation is maintainable in the High Court under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, it was argued by the counsel for the Slate that if the State is compelled to file a First Appeal, then huge amount of Court fee will have to be paid and further that having determined the compensation once the Special Judge could not have enhanced the rate of compensation. It is a settled proposition of law that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised where the petitioner has an alterenative and efficacious remedy to seek the same relief, A First Appeal is maintainable in the: High Court against the order and judgment passed by the Special Judge and it is open to the appellate court to go into all the contentions raised in this petition with regard to the validity and justification of enhancing compensation from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per acre and also with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the Special Judge to enhance the compensation on an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The mere fact that the State will have to pay court fee in filing the First Appeal cannot be said to be a relevant consideration for entertaining the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. As the petitioners have been persuing their remedy in the High Court under a wrong jurisdiction, this court is expected to take a lenient view in examining the question of delay in filing of the first appeal and the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case as the writ petition is being dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
(3.) THE petition is devoid of merits;. It is dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed.;