Kusum Kali Gupta And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Sandeep N. Bhatt, J

Present petition is filed seeking following reliefs :-

(a) To issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing ,impugned order dated- 05.02.2026 (Ann.P/1), 04.02.2026 (Ann.P/2), 06.02.2026 (Ann.P/3), 06.02.2026 (Ann. P/4) passed by the Respondent no.3;

(b) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the Respondents to again demarcate the land of the Petitioner by considering the document regarding their title and ownership in respect to disputed land;

(c) To call for the relevant records, for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court;

(d) Any other relief’s deemed fit on facts and circumstances of the instant case."

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is pointed out that under section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code an alternative remedy is available by way of statutory appeal and impugned order on the basis of which further notice is issued is required to be challenged before the competent authority. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the finding recorded by the authority in impugned order clearly indicates that that the authority has not considered the case of the petitioner in proper context and owing to some P.I.L filed before the Hon'ble High Court, without there being proper demarcation over the disputed land, the authority has decided the matter in a mechanical manner.

Considering the submission, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that when the alternative, efficacious remedy is available with the petitioner, this court may not entertain the petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petition can be entertained by exercising jurisdictions under Article 226 of the constitution considering the fact that subsequently notice is also issued.

I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. I have also considered the fact that issuance of subsequent notice is based on the impugned order passed in the matter by the authority concerned and thereafter the remedy under section 44 is available before the competent authority. When the statutory alternative efficacious remedy, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, is available to the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this court should not exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, when the alternative efficacious statutory remedy is available to the petitioner and no special circumstances is also pointed out to exercise my extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of availability of efficacious alternative remedy without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.