Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—The second appeal has been placed before us by an administrative order dated 24th September, 1993 by the then Chief Justice of the High Court due to conflicting decisions between two learned single Judge having been connected with several writ petitions previously arising out of common question. All matters are decided by this common judgment making binding effect upon all such cases. The Second Appeal No. 496 of 1988, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7343 of 1989 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7343 of 1996 have been dealt with as leading cases.

2. Although several substantial questions of law are raised by the appellant but in view of the arguments as put forward by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the writ petitioners, the following questions are inevitable to be considered by this Court :

“Whether as per Section 122-B sub-sections (4-C), (4-D) & (4-E) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950, civil suit is the appropriate remedy to resolve the dispute?

OR

Whether writ petition could lie against any order under such section irrespective of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy of civil suit ?”

3. Both the judgments of the learned single Judge are reported judgments. First one is reported in 1985 A.L.J. 746 (Sewak Shankar v. Additional Collector, Agra and others) while the other one is reported in 1987 A.W.C. 755 (Shankar Saran and others v. State of U.P. and others). At variance, Mr. Pradeep Chandra, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. B.B. Paul, learned senior Counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioners thrust upon the following relevant portion of the judgment of Sewak Shankar (supra) :

“21. It does appear that the dominant object of enacting Section 122-B and particularly Proviso to sub-section (4-E) of Section 122-B of the Act is to provide speedy, expeditious and effective remedy for the ejectment of unauthorised occupants of the Gaon Sabha land. The procedure contemplated by sub-section (4-E) of Section 122-B was for avoiding unusual, dilatory process and with the object of achieving the purpose of recovering possession without recourse to prolonged litigation in a regular suit. It is common knowledge that a regular suit takes long time commencing with the trial Court, first appellate Court, second appellate Court, and the leave petition being preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In pursuing revenue and civil suits several years could have elapsed before the possession could have been recovered. It is for this object that in case a person avails the remedy of preferring revision before the Collector, he has been deprived of the remedy of the suit. It was this mischief which the Legislature intended to avoid by incorporating the Proviso to sub-section (4-E) of Section 122-B of the Act.

22. Section 122-C provides that the land in possession of the Gaon Sabha has to be earmarked for Abadi sites for the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, agricultural labourers and village artisans. The land thus obtained is for the welfare of downtrodden and underprivileged section of society. Ours is a welfare State.

23. It would not be out of place to mention that there is a maxim Salus Populi est Suprema lex, which obviously means that the regard for public welfare is highest law. Individual welfare shall in case of necessity yield to that of the community and that his property, liberty and life shall, in certain circumstances, be placed in jeopardy or even sacrificed for public good.

24. In view of these discussions it is crystal clear that the Legislature in its wisdom thought it proper to lay down the procedure that in case revision was filed, the remedy of suit cannot be availed. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the provisions of sub-sections (4-A), (4-C), (4-D) and (4-E) of Section 122-B of the Act are not discriminatory nor are they violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

4. Therefore, let us see what is the view