Writ interference declined where petitioner failed to pursue an available remedy against vacation of interim relief.

The petitioner purchased a 0.044-hectare plot at Village Talwapara from respondent No. 5 under a registered sale deed dated 08.05.2015.

He alleged that respondent No. 5 obstructed a 15-foot passage adjoining the plot, which the petitioner and other villagers used for access.

After the Tahsildar dismissed his complaint, the petitioner appealed and obtained interim protection on 28.09.2026.

The Sub-Divisional Officer vacated that protection on 30.09.2026 while the appeal remained pending.

The petitioner challenged the vacation order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The State opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had not pursued the appropriate remedy against the interim order.

Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the order vacating interim protection while the substantive revenue appeal remains pending

Whether the petitioner’s failure to avail the appropriate remedy against the vacation order weighs against exercise of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction

The Court considered its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the principle that such jurisdiction need not be exercised where an aggrieved party has not availed an appropriate remedy available under law.

The judgment identifies no specific statutory provision or precedent governing that remedy; it leaves the pending revenue dispute to be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.

The alleged obstruction of the passage was part of a dispute still pending before the competent revenue authority.

The Court noted that the interim protection had been vacated but found no basis to intervene under Article 226, particularly because the petitioner had not availed the appropriate remedy against that order.

It declined to determine the merits of the passage dispute, leaving those issues for the revenue authority.

It clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits and directed that the competent revenue authority decide the pending appeal independently, in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the Court’s observations.