- (1.) Petitioners in this writ application have prayed for quashing the notice dated 09.09.2008 (Annexure -6) issued by the Respondent No. 4 whereby the petitioners have been informed that they would be dispossessed from the premises under their occupation on 15.09.2008. Such order of dispossession has been passed in pursuance to the order passed by the Respondent No. 5 in S.A.R. Case No. 22/05 -06.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the order in the S.A.R. Proceeding was in itself bad in law in as much as the same which is purported to have passed in exercise of power under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, is totally illegal and without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that on the submissions made by the petitioners, this Court had passed an order of interim protection on 15.09.2008 while issuing notice to the Respondent No. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 6 as also learned counsel for the Respondent State would submit at the outset that the instant writ application is not maintainable at all for the reasons that there is an alternative remedy of appeal available under the law and in fact the petitioners have already preferred an appeal before the concerned appellate authority wherein all the grounds which the petitioners have now taken in this writ application, have been taken by them and the appellate authority has the jurisdiction to consider and decide upon all the issues raised by the petitioners in the appeal which they have also raised in the present writ application and therefore, the petitioners cannot be allowed to continue two parallel proceedings.
(3.) I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the Respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to convince as to why in the light of the fact that the statutory appeal has already been preferred by the petitioners against the impugned order passed in the S.A.R. Proceeding, the petitioners need to pursue the present writ application simultaneously.;