The main legal point established in the judgment is that in the face of availability of statutory and equally efficacious remedy, the writ petition should not be entertained, and the party concerned should be relegated to such alternative remedy.

JUDGMENT

Wasim Sadiq Nargal, J. - Heard learned counsel for the caveator . The Caveator stands discharged. WP(C) No. 2588/2022

1. The Petitioner in the present writ petition is aggrieved of the order dated 13.08.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 (Sub Divisional Magistrate (Collector) Jammu North, Jammu in case titled 'Bindu Singh Jamwal & Anr V/s Chanchal Singh' by virtue of which the order dated 23.07.2022 has been vacated without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner further contends that backdated order has been passed by the respondent No.2.

2. The case set up by the petitioner is that the petitioner is the widow of Late Rudraksh Dev Jamwal, who expired in the year 2006 and the father- in -law of the petitioner had died in the year 2021, and after his death petitioner being the widow has succeeded over the estate by way of succession. It is submitted that late father-in-law was the owner in possession of the land falling under Khasra No. 78 situated at Village Barani, Jammu, which was gifted to late father-in-law by Late Atma Singh and it was reflected in the record of rights in equal share along with two other share holders namely Sukhdev Singh and Hardev Singh. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the life time of Late Jagdev he had been enjoying the peaceful cultivating possession over the land who expired in the year 2022 succeeded by the petitioner and the granddaughter namely, Ojaswini Jamwal as the husband of the petitioner who expired before the death of Late Jagdev Singh. It is further contended that late Jagdev Singh was in possession of the land falling under Khasra No. 78 alongwith other share holder, total land measuring 02 kanals 17 marlas where the respondent No. 3 in connivance with the revenue authority got the revenue entry in his name without any competency.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has filed the petition for correction of Khasra Girdwari indicating the fact that the Girdawar circle Muthi changed the revenue entry without any competency as he was not competent to change the revenue entry and incorporated the name of the respondent No. 3 without conducting any spot enquiry or hearing the actual owner. On the presentation of the petition the respondent No. 2, passed the order on 23.07.2022, by admitting the petition and directed the Tehsildar to furnish a report in the matter within a period of 15 days and the respondent No. 3 was restrained from interfering in the possession of the petitioner and the case was directed to be listed on 13.08.2022 for hearing.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the Girdawar circle was not competent to change the revenue entry, the correction of the revenue entry can be made by the Revenue Officer as per Section 26 of the Land Revenue Act and i.e only during the course of settlement operation where there is a notification under Section 22 of the land Revenue Act but not otherwsie and in case of a dispute pertaining to the tenancy then it is to be done in terms of Rule 4 of the Agrarian Reform Rules 1977.

5. Mr. G. S Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order which is impugned in the present writ petition has been passed whereby the interim direction has been vacated without hearing the petitioner, thus, the petitioner is aggrieved of the same and has filed the writ petition challenging the same on the ground that the order is against the law and facts. It is the specific case of the petitioner that since the petitioner was absent on 13.08.2022, and the objections were filed by the petitioner and it was incumbent upon respondent No. 2, to have kept the case awaiting the appearance of the petitioner or it should have been dismissed, in default, but respondent No. 2 in the instant case has passed the order on merits by passing a cryptic order vacating the interim directions, therefore, as per the petitioner the order impugned cannot