JUDGMENT

Lakshmi Prasad, J. - Raja Jitendra Singh prefers this appeal from the judgment of a learned single Judge by which his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for certiorari quashing assessment under the Large Land Holdings Tax Act made against him in respect of the year 1358 fasli has been dismissed.

The appellant succeeded to the estate of Chandapur in the year 1945 when he was a minor. The management of his estate was accordingly taken over by the Court of Wards. On the abolition of the Court of Wards the management of his estate was entrusted to the District Judge, Rae Bareli and it was ultimately released on the appellants' attaining majority on 4th March, 1958. The appellants' Sir and Khudkasht land in all the villages except in village Chandapur was sublet to tenants when the Court of Wards took management and that position continued till after the abolition of zamindari. The appellant paid land revenue more than Rs. 250/- a year. The allegation in the petition is that on these facts the sub-tenants became adhivasis and subsequently sirdars but under a misapprehension the appellant believed that since he was a disabled person, these sub-tenants were only asamis and accordingly he continued to realise rent from them as also made transfers of some such land though in the eye of law such transfers could have no effect. Initially an assessment to the tune of above Rs. 58,000/- under the Large Land Holdings Tax Act was made. The appellant preferred an appeal which was allowed and the case was remanded for assessment afresh. A notice was then again issued on 6th March, 1963. The appellant filed objection to the effect that the sir land in different villages had been let out to sub-tenants and that they became their adhivasis and subsequently with effect from 30th October, 1954 their sirdars and accordingly the same was not to be included in his land holding for the purposes of assessment. This objection of the appellant was rejected by respondent No. 3, the Assessing Authority, by his order dated 14th February, 1964 a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition. The appellant then preferred an appeal and the same was rejected by the Commissioner, Luck-now Division, respondent No. 2 by his order dated 15th April, 1964 a true copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition. By his writ petition the appellant wanted the said two orders to be quashed. He urged in the petition that even though he could prefer a revision from the appellate order under Section 12 of the Large Land Holdings Tax Act, he did not do so because of the Full Bench decision of the Board of Revenue in the case of Abdul Rashid Khan v. The State, 1961 RD 118 and approached this Court straightaway for certiorari.

The petition was opposed by the opposite-parties and a counter-affidavit was filed on their behalf. The material facts stated above are not controverted in the counter affidavit.

The learned single Judge dismissed the petition on two grounds. Firstly, he held that the petitioner having failed to avail himself of the alternative remedy by preferring a revision from the appellate order annexure 2 was not entitled to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of certiorari. Secondly, he held that, on the facts asserted in the petition itself, it was clear that the petitioner at any rate held the land in question during the year of assessment and, as such, he could not escape assessment. The appellant challenges both these findings.

The learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length in this special appeal. The learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents - has strenuously argued raising a preliminary objection to the effect that in so far as the learned single Judge has exercised discretion in refusing relief to the appellant because of the appellant's failure to avail himself of the alternative remedy open to him under the provisions of the Act itself, the appeal must fail on that ground alone.