Point of Law : The doctrine of precedent or Stare Decisis is a settled principle of law that a judgment, which has held the field for a long time, should not be unsettled. The doctrine of ' Stare Decisis et non quieta movere' means stand by decisions and not to disturb what is settled.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite party No.2 stand dispensed with.

2. Petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

"a. Direct the opposite party no.1 to decide the appeal under section 35(2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 bearing Appeal No.0824/2020, Computerized case No. T-202004230400824, Ram Chandar versus Rakesh Kumar and others, expeditiously, within a period, as fixed by this Hon'ble court, in the interest of justice. ...."

3. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1 has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of Chapter L, paragraph 494(1) of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. It is submitted that the aforesaid chapter is comprised in part V of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual (Amendment) Regulations 2016 and specifically provides that the Board of Revenue may suo moto or on the application of a party to the suit, appeal, revision or other proceeding pass general or specific order directing the court below to decide the suit, appeal, revision or other proceeding within the period enumerated in the order. It has thus been submitted that in view of availability of alternative remedy as indicated herein above, it would not be appropriate for the petitioner to directly approach this court in petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It has also been submitted that alternative remedy has been incorporated by means of U.P. Revenue Court Manual (Amendment) Regulations 2016 and now provides an effective and efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner.

4. Learned State Counsel has also relied upon the order dated 17th February, 2021 passed in writ petition No. 4064 (M/S) of 2021 (Vinod Kumar Shukla versus Up Ziladhikari Mankapur Gonda and others) and order dated 6.9.2021 passed in writ petition No. 19692 (M/S) of 2021 (Moni Singh versus Nayab Tehsildar, Barausa, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, Sultanpur) to substantiate that in such matters this Court has relegated petitioner to the alternative remedy of approaching the Board of Revenue.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has refuted the submissions advanced by learned State Counsel pertaining to the preliminary objection with the submission that the provision of supervisory control of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a constitutional provision which can not be fettered by any statutory provision. It is submitted that provision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is in the nature of an extraordinary power and would not be subject to any direction or provision of statute. It is submitted that it is settled law that availability of alternative and equally efficacious remedy would not bar a petition either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon certain judgments to substantiate his submissions.

6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, it is apparent that part V has been incorporated in the U.P. Revenue Court Manual with effect from 2016 with Chapter L containing paragraph 494(1) giving jurisdiction to Board of Revenue to issue directions for expediting suits, appeals, revisions and other proceedings pending before revenue authorities. It is on the basis of Chapter 494(1) of the aforesaid manual that the order has been passed in the case of Vinod Kumar Shukla (supra).

7. With regard to entertainability of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India particularly in view of availability of an alternative and equally efficacious remedy, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another versus Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in A.I.R. 2010 SCW 6387 has enunciated the extent and scope of this