M.N.BHANDARI,J. - (1.) By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 2nd April, 2013 passed by the competent authority under Section 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956") apart from the order dated 2nd August, 2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner dismissing the appeal.
(2.) Learned counsel for respondent has raised objection about maintainability of the writ petition. It is stated that remedy under Section 83 of the Act of 1956 is available thus writ petition for challenge to the order having concurrent finding of fact may not be accepted. He made reference of judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Sheela Kothari (Smt.) v. Board of Revenue and Ors., reported in 2013(1) RRT 482 where a challenge to the similar order was made before the Board of Revenue by invoking Section 84 of the Act of 1956. It was held maintainable.
(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner has contested the issue raised by learned counsel for respondent about maintainability of the writ petition. As per Section 90A(9) of the Act of 1956, the order passed therein is treated as final. The only remedy is of appeal and having availed, now remedy to challenge the order passed on the appeal is of the writ jurisdiction. He further submits that remedy of revision cannot be said to be efficacious as Section 84 of the Act of 1956 can be invoked only in certain circumstances and not in all the cases. He has made a reference of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sher Singh (dead) by Lrs. v. Joint Director of Consolidation and Ors., reported in (1978) 3 SCC 172 where scope of revision was held to be limited. A further reference of judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Krishna Nagar Vikas Samiti v. Anjana Kothari, DB Civil Special Appeal No. 986/2011, decided on 6th May, 2015 has been given. Therein, judgment of this court in the case of Sheela Kothari (supra) was considered. A prayer is, accordingly, made not to dismiss the writ petition in reference to the objection raised by learned counsel for respondent. The writ petition is maintainable and otherwise even if alternative remedy exists, there cannot be an absolute bar to maintain writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;