A Writ Petition under Article 226 is generally not maintainable when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available, unless specific exceptions such as a violation of natural justice or a total defiance of judicial procedure are demonstrated.

1. The factual matrix as well as the core issue involved in all these writ petitions being identical, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C) No. 2883 of 2020 is treated as the lead case for adjudication of the present batch of matters. The petitioner in the said petition has sought the following reliefs:

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records from the respondents.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, setting-aside/quashing the impugned notice dated 09.10.2020 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive step against the petitioner.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents no. 4 & 5 to proceed for allotment of shop in question in favour of petitioner after taking the amount as fixed by the authorities, in accordance with law.

10.4 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.”

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner belongs to a poor and rustic family and is living below the poverty line. He has been in long-standing possession of a small piece of Government land forming part of Khasra No. 722/1, situated at Ward No. 5 (now Ward No. 3), Saraipali, where he has constructed a shop/house and has been carrying on a small business for several decades without any hindrance, objection, or protest from any quarter. The said shop, which is located approximately 60 feet away from the main road, constitutes the sole source of livelihood for the petitioner and his family. It is further the case of the petitioner that he has been regularly paying the requisite taxes/fees to the competent authorities. The petitioner submits that respondents No. 4 and 5 had earlier expressed their intention to allot the said land/shop in his favour upon payment of 150% of the prevailing market value, pursuant to which he duly submitted his consent and application; however, no further action has been taken by the authorities in this regard till date. It is further averred that, all of a sudden, the respondent No. 3 issued the impugned order-cum-notice directing the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment, failing which the structure would be demolished, and the articles therein seized at his cost. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon the State Government order dated 11.09.2019, whereby directions were issued to settle Government land in favour of persons who were in possession prior to the year 2017. Despite approaching the authorities and ventilating his grievance, the petitioner contends that no heed has been paid, and he has been threatened that his shop may be demolished at any point of time.

3. Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner (in WPS No. 2883 of 2020) submits that the impugned notice (Annexure P-1) is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in the eyes of law, and is liable to be quashed. It is contended that the said demolition notice has been issued by respondent No. 3 in a mechanical manner, without application of mind and in gross violation of the settled principles of law. In particular, it is urged that no prior show cause notice was ever served upon the petitioner, nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to him before issuing the impugned notice, thereby rendering the same violative of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the pe