Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Chandrika Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ruchir Ranjan Rai, Adv. Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ankur Yadav, AOR Mr. Nitin Singh, Adv. Mr. Kuldeep Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Apoorva Singh, Adv.

Key Points: - The judgment discusses that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on writ jurisdiction, especially when petitions have been entertained and matter pending for long, requiring merits focus (!) (!) . - It addresses that where there is a serious dispute of fact on possession, writ courts may refrain and may relegate to a suit; the case holds that the writ court should have relegated the petitioner to a suit rather than decide the possession issue in writ jurisdiction (!) (!) (!) . - It clarifies that possession can be taken in various forms (physical, symbolic) and the relevance of the cut-off date under the Repeal Act for determining abatement of ceilings, with considerations about whether possession was taken before the cut-off date (!) (!) . - The decision emphasizes that the High Court should not decide disputed questions of fact where evidence is inconclusive and should favor merit-based resolution or suit if necessary (!) (!) . - It notes that writ petitions can be dismissed without prejudice to rights to institute a suit, preserving potential future relief (!) .

What is the Court's stance on the existence of an alternative remedy as a bar to writ jurisdiction?

What is the appropriate approach in writ petitions when there is a serious dispute of fact regarding possession in land ceiling cases and whether to relegated to a suit?

What are the implications of possession being taken on paper vs actual possession and the cut-off date under the Repeal Act for conclusive rights to relief?