Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) Petitioner, who alleges himself to be the owner of the premises in question, aggrieved by the order passed by the prescribed authority in P.A. Case No. 23 of 2003, dated 12th July, 2004, which has been executed by the authority under the provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by order dated 27th January, 2005, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers : "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Release Application No. 23 of 2003, Sushil Yadav and Ors. v. Rajendra Pratap Singh under Section 21A of Act No. 13 of 1972 (Annexure-) and to quash the ex-parte judgment and eviction order dated 12.7.2004, passed in P.A. Case No. 23 of 2O03, Sushil Kumar Yadav v. Rajendra Pratap Singh, under Section 21 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 (Annexure-7), and Execution order dated 27.1.2005 passed by Prescribed Authority in Execution Application M.P.A. Case No. 43 of 2004, Sushil Kumar Yadav v. Rajendra Pratap Singh, under Section 23 of Act No. 13 of 1972 (Annexure-9). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondents to restore back/ restitute peaceful possession and occupation of the petitioner in his House No. 108/7, New No. 164, Mohalla Meerapur, (Patel Naghar), Dariabad, Allahabad along with his household properties taken into possession by police. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondents police personnels to ensure safety and protection to life and property of the petitioner in future otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondents to compensate the petitioner with Rs. one lac for unnecessary and illegal harassment and torture. (v) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (vi) award the cost of the petition."
(2.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner is neither the landlord, nor the tenant, hence according to the petitioner he has no right to file an appeal, therefore the petitioner has no remedy. I do not agree with the aforesaid contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 22 of the Act, wherein in my opinion, the petitioner can raise his grievance against the orders passed by the prescribed authority. Section 22 of the Act, which is reproduced below, clearly demonstrate that it can be filed by any person and is not confined only to the landlord or the tenant. "22. Appeal.--Any person aggrieved by an order under Section 21 or Section 24 may within thirty days from the date of the order prefer an appeal against it to the District Judge, and in other respects, the provisions of Section 10 shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to such appeal."
(3.) In this view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the appellate authority.;