Availability of an alternative statutory remedy warrants relegation to appeal or revision while interim protection continues.

The petitioner challenged orders dated 23 July 2024 passed by the Collector and Nazul Tehsildar, Ambikapur, including an ejectment order concerning his property. Pursuant to the order, a portion of the petitioner’s house was demolished on the same day.

The petitioner approached the High Court, which, by an interim order dated 1 August 2024, restrained the respondents from taking coercive steps to demolish the remaining portion of the construction; consequently, the petitioner continued in occupation under the protection of that interim order.

The petitioner also sought consideration of his pending allotment/arrangement application under the policy prevailing before 23 July 2024 and compensation of ₹80,00,000 for the demolition.

The State opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal/revision against the Nazul Tehsildar’s order.

Whether the writ petition was maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal/revision was available against the Nazul Tehsildar’s order dated 23 July 2024.

Whether the petitioner should be directed to pursue the available appellate/revisional remedy while continuing the interim protection against further demolition.

The Court applied the established principle that the High Court ordinarily should not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal or revision is available, particularly against an administrative or quasi-judicial order.

The Court further applied the procedural principle that the existence of an alternative remedy does not prevent the Court from issuing appropriate interim protection to preserve the subject matter pending adjudication by the competent authority.

Since the petitioner had not challenged the Nazul Tehsildar’s order before the appropriate appellate or revisional authority, and an alternative remedy was available under law, the High Court declined to examine the merits of the impugned orders in the writ proceedings.

Instead, it directed the petitioner to file an appropriate appeal or revision within 15 days. Recognising that a portion of the property had already been demolished and that the remaining construction was protected by the interim order dated 1 August 2024, the Court continued that protection until the competent authority considered the petitioner’s challenge.

The interim order dated 1 August 2024 restraining further demolition was directed to continue until such adjudication.