The main legal point established in the judgment is that where a complete machinery/remedy for obtaining relief is provided in statute and such machinery and remedy fully covers the grievance of the petitioner, the petitioner has to be relegated to the alternative remedy and the Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of the grievance by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the notice dated 27.10.2021 issued by the respondent- Jaipur Development Authority under Section 72 of the Jaipur Development Authority, 1982 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1982').

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that land alleged to be under encroachment being part of 200 Ft. wide road on which he has raised construction of Lions Paradise Garden, is his private land as already held by the District Collector, Jaipur vide its judgment dated 07.12.2015 in an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1976. He, therefore, prays that the notice impugned dated 27.10.2021 be quashed.

3. With regard to maintainability of the writ petition despite having an efficacious and alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 83 of the Act of 1982, learned counsel submitted that there is no absolute bar of entertaining the writ petition. He, in this regard, relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal: (2014) 1 SCC 603 and a Coordinate bench judgment of this Court in case of Chhotu Ram & Another v. State of Rajasthan & Others: 2015 (3) WLC (Raj.) 216.

4. He further submitted that since right to property is still a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the writ petition is maintainable for enforcement of a constitutional right. He, in this regard, relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.: (2020) 9 Supreme Court Cases 356. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be entertained and allowed.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. The notice dated 27.10.2021 has been issued by a competent authority wherein it has been alleged that petitioner has encroached upon a part of 200 Ft. wide road by raising construction of Lions Paradise Garden on it. The contention of the learned counsel that the aforesaid land already stands declared by a competent authority to be his private land, does not merit acceptance. A bare perusal of the judgment dated 07.12.2015 passed by District Collector does not establish the land alleged to be encroached upon by the petitioner is part of the same land which was subject matter of appeal under Section 75 of the Act of 1956. It being disputed question of fact cannot be entertained in the writ jurisdiction.

7. The petitioner has a statutory efficacious and alternative remedy of appeal under Section 83 of the Act of 1982 against the impugned notice dated 27.10.2021 issued under Section 72 of the Act of 1982. True that not entertaining the writ jurisdiction on account of availability of alternative remedy is a self imposed restriction but, it can only be exercised if any exceptional circumstance warranting interference in writ jurisdiction exists. In the present case, learned counsel utterly failed to point out any such exceptional circumstance. The writ petition is bereft of any such averment that petitioner does not have any alternative remedy or that the alternative remedy available is not efficacious. A Full Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has, in case of Chandrama Singh v. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Union, Lucknow & Ors.-1991, (2) UPLBEC 898 while deciding a reference, held as under:

"4. Ordinarily, remedy of reference, envisaged under the Industrial Disputes Act, is an adequate and efficacious remedy available to a person aggrieved by an illegal retrenchment. Of course, the aggrieved person can always prove that, on the facts and circumstances of his case, the remedy is neither adequate nor efficacious. But, unless he discharges the onus of proving that the remedy of reference is either inadequate or inefficacious he should pursue the remedy of reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to emphasis that it would not be enough for the person pleading inadequacy or inefficacy of the rel