Union Of India And Another vs Pushpa Devi And Others

Sanjay Dhar, J

By virtue of the instant petition, Union of India has challenged the judgment/order and award dated 10.07.2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhaderwah in a reference made under section 18 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act. The judgment/order passed by a District Judge in a reference under section 18 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act is appealable in terms of section 52 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, as a judgment and decree before the High Court. The petitioners, without resorting to the aforesaid remedy, have filed the instant writ petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The aforesaid position of law was noted by this Court in order dated 29.09.2022 and the learned counsel for the petitioners had sought time to have instructions in the matter and a further direction was issued that the Defence Estate Officer, Northern Command, Udhampur shall appear in person.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Defence Estate Officer, Northern Command Udhampur appeared in Court on 28.11.2022 and sought time to have instructions in the matter from the competent authority.

Today, Mr. Harshwardhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners has sought further time to have instructions in the matter from the competent authority as to whether the petitioners want to continue with this writ petition or to withdraw the same.

There can be no two opinions regarding the legal position that once there is a statutory remedy of appeal available to a party against any order/judgment of judicial/quasi judicial authority, the High Court would be loathe to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such matters. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not brought to the notice of this Court any ground much less reasonable ground as to why this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite there being a remedy of statutory appeal available against the judgment/award of the reference court. So without waiting for the instructions which the learned counsel for the petitioners may obtain from the competent authority, this Court feels that keeping this writ petition pending will be a waste of time particularly when the writ petition itself is not maintainable, in the presence of an alternative efficacious remedy.

For all what has been discussed above, the present writ petition is dismissed as being not maintainable with a liberty to the petitioners to work out the appropriate remedy as may be available under law.

Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.