AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anoop Chitkara, J
Challenging the acceptance of mutual partition by the Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate (Rural), District Shimla/3rd respondent, the petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, instead of seeking the statutory remedy available to her in accordance with law.
Notice. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
We have heard learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the case file.
Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has raised serious objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the remedy lies elsewhere and not by invoking the writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not refute this contention.
Given above, we close this petition as the same is not maintainable, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek recourse to the appropriate remedies available to her, if she so desire. Pending application(s), if any, are closed.