Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri S.C. Varma along with Sri Anil Kumar Aditya for the petitioners and Sri C.B. Yadav, Additional Advocate General, along with Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for State of U.P.

2. Due to conflict in opinion between two Hon’ble Single Judges in the cases of Sewak Shanker v. Additional Collector, Agra and others, 1985 ALJ 746 and Shanker Saran and others v. State of U. P. and others, 1987 AWC 755, on the issue of maintainability of writ petition, challenging orders passed in proceeding under Section 122-B of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the matter was placed before the Division Bench in Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P., 2008(4) ADJ 37 (DB), under the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice for resolving the same. The Division Bench framed the following question for consideration:

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

Or

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

The Division Bench held that in view of alternative and efficacious remedy of suit, under the statute itself, writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked.

3. Correctness of dictum laid down by the Division Bench in Rajendra Singh (supra), was doubted by a Single Judge, who has referred the following questions to be answered by a larger Bench, for which this Bench has been constituted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice:-

(i) Whether the Division Bench in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra) is correct in holding that writ petition challenging the orders passed in proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act would not be maintainable in view of alternative remedy of suit provided by the Statute itself, against the orders passed by the Assistant Collector or the Collector in the said proceedings?

(ii) Whether the view expressed by the Division Bench in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra) that since a remedy by way of suit has been provided in sub Section (4-D) of Section 122-B, the writ petition challenging the order passed in proceedings under Section 122-B would be barred by principles of existence of alternative remedy requires reconsideration in view of Division Benches of co-ordinate jurisdiction in the case of K.H. Panjani v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 All. 26 (DB); Smt. Shanti Devi v. State of U.P., 1978 AWC 189 and Satyapal Singh Chauhan v. Chairman-cum-chief Executive Officer, 1984 UPLBEC 587 (DB) as well as Full Bench decisions in the case of Buddhu v. Municipal Board, AIR 1952 All 753 (FB) and Bijli Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Hathras v. Estate Officer/Secretary, National Textile Corporation, U.P. and others, 1977 AWC 191 (SB)?

(iii) Whether the Division Bench judgment in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra) holding that ‘’civil suit’ is the appropriate remedy to resolve every dispute under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, lays down the correct law, even though the legislature has used the words “suit in a Court of competent jurisdiction in sub Section ‘’4-D’, and Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act specifically bars the jurisdiction of civil Court, in respect of any suit, application or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which relief could be granted by Revenue Courts?

4. By U.P. Act No. XXXVII of 1958, the Act was amended, adding Section 122-A, giving power of superintendence, management, preservation and control of all land vested in Gaon Sabha to Land Management Committee of the village. By U.P. Act No. XXVIII of 1961, Section 122-B was added, providing a summary procedure for ejectment of an unauthorised occupants of the land vested in State of U.P./Gaon Sabha/Local Authority and realization of damages for use and occupation and misappropriation of such property. Ru