A writ petition can be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy when the impugned order violates principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai J.

Heard Mr. Daya Shankar Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chandrakesh Mishra and Mr. Abhishek Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

3. This Court has entertained the matter on 11.7.2023 and passed the following order:

"1. Heard Shri Daya Shankar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Abhishek Kumar Mishra for petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

2. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Veer Singh, Banwari, Lokesh, Akash sons of Nanhe as respondent nos 4 to 7 in the writ petition during course of the day.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that application under Section 32/ 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed by petitioner for correcting the revenue entry has been rejected in arbitrary and ex-parte manner vide order dated 6.5.2022. He further submitted that appeal filed by petitioner under Section 38(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has also been dismissed at the admission stage without considering the grounds set up in the appeal as well as argued before the Appellate Court. He further submitted that name of petitioner was ordered to be recorded over the plot in dispute under the order of Tehsildar dated 16.10.1980 which is mentioned in the khatauni of 1382 fasli- 1387 fasli but due to fault of the revenue authorities, petitioner's name was not recorded in the next khatauni, as such, petitioner's case is covered under the purview of Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that petitioner has alternative remedy of revision against the impugned appellate order passed under Section 38(4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as such, writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

5. In reply, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that order impugned has been passed in such an arbitrary manner which will amount to violation of principle of natural justice, as such, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (1) AWC 437 (SC) Committee of Management and another v. Vice Chancellor and Others as well as law laid down by this Court reported in 2022 (4) ADJ 578 Smt. Kalawati v. The Board of Revenue and Others, writ petition be entertained and it should not be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

6. Matter requires consideration.

7. Issue notice to respondent nos 4 to 7 returnable at an early date.

8. Steps be taken within 10 days.

9. All the respondents shall file counter-affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

10. List this matter in the additional cause list on 28.8.2023."

4. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 11.7.2023, notices were issued to respondent nos.4 to 7.

5. Office has reported that service is sufficient upon respondent nos.4 to 7.

6. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of private respondent nos.4 to 7 nor any counter affidavit hs been filed by State.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceeding under Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been concluded in exparte manner against the petitioner. He placed the order sheet of 6.5.2022 by which the proceeding was registered before the Sub-Divisional Officer. He further submitted that on the same date Sub-Divisional Offic