Chander Singh vs State of Haryana and others

G.S. Sandhawalia , J.

The present order shall dispose of three writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos.27705, 27757 and 27818 of 2018.

Challenge in the present writ petitions filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure P-2),

whereby the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') had been dismissed on account of limitation, as the

same having not been filed within the prescribed period of 3 months.

This Court does not propose to deal with the order impugned on merits, since the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy available

under Section 28A(3) of the Act. The same is reproduced as under:

“28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.

(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred

by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they

apply to a reference under section 18.â€​

The Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110 has noticed the principles of alternative remedy. It was

observed that it was a self imposed restraint and the alternative remedy was a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. The relevant observations

read as under:-

“44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to

issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the

enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that

power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to

keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason

why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can

avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal

of his grievance.â€​

Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioners does not press the present writ petitions and prays for liberty to approach the competent

authorities for the redressal of petitioners' grievances, in accordance with law.

Ordered accordingly.