TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Debt Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioner assisted by Mr. L.K. Lal and Mr. Pradeep Modi learned Government Pleader -1 for the State No. body appears on behalf of Respondent No. 3.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.11.1994 passed in SAR Case No. 116/83 -84 by the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, whereby and whereunder 4 decimals of land of Khata No. 13, Plot No. 1151 and 10 decimals of land on the same Khata, i.e., Khata No. 13 of Plot No. 1152 has been ordered to be restored in favour of the Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner, however, is concerned with 0.10 decimal of land falling on Plot No. 1152 only. The Petitioner is also aggrieved with the consequential order dated 30.09.1995 by reason whereof the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation has passed an order relating to delivery of possession. A preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition raised on behalf of the Respondents is rejected and it is held that notwithstanding the availability of alternative forums, i.e., appeal, revision and petition before the Member, Board of Revenue, this writ petition is nonetheless maintainable inasmuch as, apart from the fact that this is a writ of certiorari, it seeks to challenge the orders passed under Section 71 -A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, which admittedly in the facts and circumstances of the case was not maintainable. The orders were wholly without jurisdiction and therefore, the bar of alternative remedy shall not apply. Therefore, this Court proceeds to entertain the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedies as stated hereinabove.
(3.) THE facts of this case which are necessary to be looked into are as follows :;