- (1.) The present misc. application has been filed by the applicants seeking revival of the Civil Misc. Appeal being No.1733/2013, on the basis of the observation made by the learned Single Judge while dismissing of the writ petition No.8347/2013 vide the order dated 26.03.2014.
(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present application are that the present applicants-appellants had filed the Civil Misc. Appeal being No.1733/2013 on 17.05.2013, challenging the order dated 19.03.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the reference court ) in reference case No.38/22/2012, made under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, whereby the reference court had awarded the compensation to the respondent Nos.2 to 8, rejecting the claim of the present applicants. It appears that the applicants also filed one writ petition being No.8347/2013 on 18.05.2013, challenging the same order passed by the reference court without disclosing the fact of filing Civil Misc. Appeal No.1733/2013. Of course, it was averred in the writ petition that though the alternative remedy of filing C.M.A. lies under the provisions contained in Land Acquisition Act, the applicants had filed the writ petition as in the C.M.A. they had to pay huge court fees and the applicants being poor persons were not capable to pay the court fees. The writ court after considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the maintainability of the writ petition when alternative remedy available, admitted the writ petition vide the order dated 24.05.2013 and stayed the execution of the impugned judgment and order dated 19.03.2013 passed by the reference court, and further directed the parties to maintain the status-quo till next date.
(3.) It further appears that on the service of notice to the respondents, the concerned respondent Nos.2 to 8 had filed an application in the writ petition seeking dismissal of the writ petition on account of availability of alternative remedy. However, the said application was dismissed by the writ court vide the order dated 06.09.2013, observing that it would be more appropriate and in the interest of Justice that all the parties be heard and the writ petition be decided on merits. In the meantime, the applicants moved an application being No.16259/2013 in Civil Misc. Appeal No.1733/2013 seeking permission to withdraw the said appeal on the ground that the writ petition was already preferred by the applicants, challenging the same order passed by the reference court. Considering the said application, the court permitted the applicants to withdraw the C.M.A. unconditionally vide the order dated 19.08.2013, and accordingly the appeal stood dismissed as withdrawn.;