The court underscored the principle that writ petitions should not be entertained when adequate alternative remedies exist, emphasizing the role of statutory frameworks in dispute resolution.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who was conducting quarrying operations in Government land comprised in Re-survey No.36/4 in Block No.37 of Velinalloor Village of Kottarakkara Taluk, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 order dated 27.07.2020 issued by the 1st respondent. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the claim based on Ext.P9 is totally unsustainable.

2. On 04.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

3. On 11.01.2021, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader submitted that a statutory remedy of appeal is available against Ext.P9 order, in view of the provisions under clause (a) in sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 . The learned counsel for the petitioner raised a question as to whether the 1st respondent Tahsildar (LR) is competent to issue Ext.P9 order.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

5. Vide Notification No.LRD4-18737/57/Rev. dated

01.10.1958 published in Kerala Gazette dated 07.10.1957 Part I, the Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, authorised all Taluk Tahsildars to exercise by virtue of their office all the powers of the District Collector under the said Act, within their respective jurisdiction, except the power of hearing under Section 16 . Thereafter, vide Notification No.LRD4-18737/57/Rev. dated 25.10.1958 published in Kerala Gazette dated 01.11.1958 Part I the Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred by of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act directed that the appeal from the decision or order of the Taluk Tahsildar empowered under Section 15 of the said Act shall lie to the Collector of the District.

6. Section 16 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, which deals with appeal and revision, was substituted by Act 11 of 1971 with effect from 05.01.1971. As per sub-section (1) of , any person aggrieved by any decision or order under this Act of any officer authorised under Section 15 may appeal; (a) where such officer is the Revenue Divisional Officer, to the Collector; (b) in all other cases, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, and the Collector or the Revenue Divisional Officer, as the case may be, may pass such order on the appeal as he thinks fit. As per the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of , no appeal shall lie in any case where the order is passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on appeal under clause (b). In view of the provisions under of the Act, Ext.P9 order dated 27.07.2020 of the 1st respondent Tahsildar (LR) is appealable before the Revenue Divisional Officer, under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of of the Act.

7. InCommissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Das Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603] the Apex Court held that non- entertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule and self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the existence of alternative remedy. However, High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same, unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exists sufficient ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

8. InAuthorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [(2018) 3 SCC 85] the Apex Court reiterated that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of In