The main legal point established in the judgment is that when petitioners have already availed the alternative remedy available to them and the matter is pending before the appropriate forum, the court may not entertain a writ petition seeking relief on the same matter.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State counsel.

( 2 ) PRAYER in this petition is for issuance of the writ in the nature of mandamus or prohibition restraining the respondents from evicting the petitioner from the disputed land and pond except in accordance with law. There is further prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents from interfering in the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute By moving amendment application prayer for quashing the order of the Settlement officer Consolidation dated 11. 4. 2001, has been made and another prayer has also been added that the Deputy Director of Consolidation be directed to dispose of the pending revision against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 11. 4. 2001 within a reasonable time.

( 3 ) ARGUMENT of the learned counsel for the petitioners can be summarised.

( 4 ) DISPUTE is in respect to plot Nos. 843 and 837 situated in village Palri Pargana Shikarpur district Muzaffarnagar. Claim of the petitioner is that name of their predecessor was recorded for a long time and admittedly when the present consolidation proceedings started name of petitioners father was recorded as assamt. It is clamed that several objections came before the consolidation Officer in respect to the entry over the land in dispute including one by the petitioners father besides Ramesh Chandra and Gaon Sabha and they are pending. In the meantime matter went to the Settlement Officer Consolidation at the instance of the Gaon Sabha in which it is said that the order was passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation after calling report from the Consolidation Officer and by order dated 11. 4. 2001 name of petitioners father was directed to be expunged. Claim is that as order passed by the appellate authority was without any opportunity to the petitioners father and without their being any order of the Consolidation officer, petitioners father filed revision along with stay application. In the revision filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation an order directing to maintain status quo regarding the disputed plots was granted. It has-also come that petitioners father filed a civil suit for injunction, i. e. , Original Suit No. 158 of 2001 in which an injunction was granted in his favour and his interest was protected. Inspite of the aforesaid grievance as placed before this Court appears to be that respondents in collusion with each other are trying to interfere in the petitioners possession although the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 11. 4. 2001 is illegal. Although revision is pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in which there is interim protection to the petitioners and a civil suit is also pending in which also there is interim stay but petitioners submit that as the respondents are bent upon to harass the petitioners the writ petition should be entertained straightway as alternative remedy cannot be said to be absolute bar. Submission is that the claim of the petitioners is related to bread and butter and, therefore, the Court is to entertain the writ petition and is to grant relief, as prayed. In support of the submission that writ petition can entertained straightaway irrespective of alternative remedy reliance has been placed on decision given in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia and Anr. v. Indian oil Corporation Ltd, and Ors. , AIR 2003 SC 2120, decision given in the case of Babu Lal and ors. v. Collector, Varanasi and Ors. , 1995 ACJ 1319 and decision given in Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 1956 SC 479.

( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid matter has been examined.

( 6 ) IN view of the facts as has come on record, there is no dispute about the fact that against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation petitioner has filed revision before the Deputy director of Consolidation which is still pending. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is