The High Court will not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when an effective alternative statutory remedy for grievance redressal exists, unless exceptional circumstances such as the violation of natural justice are clearly demonstrated.

Order on Board

1. The petitioner has filed these writ petitions seeking following reliefs :

WPC No. 1020 of 2016 :

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to call the entire records pertaining to this case.

10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, thereby set aside and declare illegal, the impugned order dated 11-04-2016 passed by res, no 4 assuming authority of res. no 3.

10.3 Hon'ble court may further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to not disturb the petitioner from farming on her bhumiswami land, as and how she is desired to do so in her better interest.

10.4 Hon'ble court may further be pleased to take stern action against the res. no 4 who is unnecessary disturbing threatening under the robe of IAS officer and its authority to the petitioner from conducting farming on her bhumiswami land. Hon'ble court may also be kindly pleased to direct the respondent authorities to let give clear instructions and guidelines to the res. no 4 that he will not misuse his power either personally or through any one else for threatening the petitioner, pertaining to this case in present or in future.

10.5 Hon'ble court may further be kindly pleased to pass any other relief(s) which it deems fit along with cost of the petition in the interest of justice.”

WPC No. 2032 of 2021 :

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to stop the illegal fencing of the land of Khasara No. 189/3 and 194/1.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may also be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to take the stringent legal action against the respondent no. 6.

10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is a recorded bhumiswami of several parcels of land bearing Khasra Nos. 190/1, 192/1, 192/3, 194/5, and 194/2, admeasuring a total area of 9.575 hectares (hereinafter referred to as the “disputed land”). The petitioner, belonging to a Scheduled Tribe community, earns her livelihood through agriculture and has been cultivating crops on the said land. The revenue records, including the B-1 extract, reflect her ownership, and a joint enquiry conducted by the Nayab Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector, and Patwari, upon spot inspection and verification of records, also confirmed that the disputed land belongs to the petitioner. A dispute arose when the Gram Panchayat Mohla, through its Sarpanch, submitted a memorandum dated 28.03.2016 to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), alleging that the petitioner was excavating a pond-like structure on the disputed land, which the villagers claimed to be Nistari land. Acting upon this complaint, the Tahsildar passed an interim order dated 28.03.2016 restraining the petitioner from carrying out excavation work and initiated revenue proceedings by issuing notices to the petitioner and directing a detailed spot enquiry. Pursuant to such directions, a joint enquiry was conducted, and the report dated 02.04.2016 concluded that although a pond-like structure existed on the land, it formed part of the petitioner’s bhumiswami land, and no such structure was recorded in the official revenue records. After considering the enquiry report, documents, and hearing both parties, the Tahsildar, by a reasoned order dated 06.04.2016, held that the disputed land belongs to the petitioner and that she is entitled to use it, including for excavation purposes. Consequently, th