The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited and cannot be exercised in reference to a disputed question of fact. Alternative remedies, such as those provided under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, must be exhausted before approaching the High Court.

JUDGMENT

M.N. Bhandari, J. - 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.) vs. Board of Revenue & 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. vs. Joint Director of Consolidation & 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 vs. 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.

4. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. It is a case where an application under Section 90A of the Act of 1956 was filed by the respondent. The objections were invited thereupon. The petitioner submitted objections. It was dealt with though serious objection on the aforesaid has been raised by learned counsel for petitioner. In any case, the competent authority passed order favourable to the respondent after hearing both the parties.

6. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, however, it was dismissed though it is alleged that main issue in reference to the objection was not decided. The conversion of land sought by the respondent was not connected with a 30 ft. wide road. In view of the above, the appeal preferred by him should have been allowed by the Divisional Commissioner. Since preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition has been raised by learned counsel for respondent, I am first dealing with it. A reference of Sections 83 and 84 of the Act of 1956 has been given. Both the provisions are quoted thus:

"83. Power of Government to call for records and revise orders - The State government may call for the record of any non-judicial proceedings not connected with settlement held by any officer subordinate to it, and may pass thereon such orders as it thinks fit.

84. Power of Board to call for records and revise orders - The Board may call for the record of any case of a judicial nature or connected with settlement in which no appeal lies to the Board if the court or officer by whom the case was decided appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or him