Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Dilip Kumar Awal – Appellant
Versus
Collector Satna District Satna & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 27742 of 2022
Decided On : 05-12-2022
Article 226 - M.P. Land Revenue Code - The court dismissed the petition as the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedy available under Section 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 challenging the rejection of their application under Section 109/110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedy available under Section 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 without availing the statutory remedy available under Section 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy available under Section 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.
Final Decision: The instant writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to avail the statutory remedy available under Section 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. - In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 07.11.2022 (Annexure P/10) passed by respondent No.2- Tahsildar, Tahsil- Maihar, District Satna in Case No.1292/A- 6/2020-21, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 109/110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code has been rejected.
2. At the outset, learned Govt. Advocate submitted that instant petition is not maintainable since against the impugned order statutory efficacious, alternative remedy of appeal under section 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 is available to the petitioner and without availing the remedy he has approached this Court directly.
3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to avail the statutory remedy available under Section 44 of the M.P.L.R.C or in accordance with law.
4. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
AI
The main legal point established is that a petition under Article 226 may not be maintainable if the statutory remedy available under the relevant law has not been exhausted.
Once a settlement has been reached resulting in the withdrawal of a petition, a recalling application may not be maintainable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
