Petitioner granted liberty to pursue statutory appeal or revision against acquisition orders.

The petitioner, Govind Singh Bhadoriya, sought a direction requiring the respondent authorities to allot him land of equivalent value in lieu of agricultural land allegedly acquired or taken over by the State, and also sought consideration of his representation.

During the hearing, the petitioner requested liberty to pursue an appropriate appeal or revision against the order dated 03.01.2009 and to raise all grievances before the competent authority.

The State opposed the request, contending that the 2009 order had remained unchallenged for approximately fourteen years and that the writ petition was barred by inordinate and unexplained delay.

It further submitted that, with the petitioner’s consent, Nazul land of equivalent value had been allotted, although its area was not equivalent to that of the agricultural land taken over.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had not challenged a subsequent order dated 05.03.2011, which had a bearing on the dispute.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue an alternative statutory remedy against the order dated 03.01.2009 despite the substantial delay in challenging it?

Whether the petitioner’s grievance, including the effect of the subsequent order dated 05.03.2011, should be examined by the competent authority rather than directly by the High Court in writ jurisdiction?

The Court applied the principle that where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy, such as an appeal or revision, is available, the aggrieved party may be relegated to that remedy, particularly where disputed factual issues arise.

The Court also considered the equitable principle that an unexplained and inordinate delay may weigh against exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Further, an order having a direct bearing on the grievance must ordinarily be specifically challenged before effective adjudication can take place.

The Court directed that any appeal or revision, if filed, must be considered in accordance with law on its own merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

The Court did not adjudicate the petitioner’s substantive entitlement to land of equal value.

It noted both the State’s objection based on the petitioner’s prolonged failure to challenge the 03.01.2009 order and the fact that the 05.03.2011 order, which materially affected the dispute, had also not been challenged.

In these circumstances, the Court considered it appropriate for the competent authority to examine the petitioner’s grievances in the first instance through the available appeal or revision mechanism.

The petitioner was therefore granted liberty to challenge the 03.01.2009 order and, if permissible in law, to raise issues concerning the subsequent order dated 05.03.2011.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appropriate appeal or revision before the competent authority against the order dated 03.01.2009 and to raise all connected grievances, including those relating to the order dated 05.03.2011, subject to their being permissible in law.

The competent authority was directed to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law, on its own merits, after affording due hearing to all concerned parties.