Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is declined when a petitioner has already invoked an alternative statutory appellate remedy.

The petitioners are owners of agricultural land in Village Harshadpur, District Devbhumi Dwarka.

On July 7, 2025, the Respondent No. 1 (Mamlatdar) passed an order directing that the area of 20 land parcels be reduced and mutated as "government wasteland (b)/railway road" in the revenue records

This order was based on an application by Respondent No. 2 (Railways) and a measurement sheet prepared by the District Inspector of Land Records (DILR)

Consequently, mutation entry No. 4813 was made on July 8, 2025, and certified on July 29, 2025

The petitioners challenged this order, alleging it was passed without issuing show-cause notices or providing an opportunity for hearing

Parallelly, the petitioners had filed a civil suit (Regular Civil Suit No. 79 of 2024) for declaration and injunction

While the petitioners filed written objections against the mutation entry, the Mamlatdar certified the entry on the grounds that no stay order existed against his July 7 order

1. Whether the Mamlatdar’s order dated July 7, 2025, and the subsequent certification of mutation entry No. 4813 were void for violation of the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when the petitioners have already invoked the statutory appellate remedy under the Land Revenue Code

Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, specifically Section 135D, which mandates notice to interested parties regarding mutation entries

statutory framework for appeals against revenue orders to the Collector/Prant Officer

Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972, specifically Rule 108, regarding the procedure for certifying entries and handling disputes

settled judicial principle that extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists and has been actively invoked by the party

The petitioners contended that the Mamlatdar acted without jurisdiction and in total violation of natural justice by altering revenue records without notice

the court observed that Respondent No. 2 (Railways) provided evidence of historical railway infrastructure existing since 1922 and that the DILR measurement process involved local residents

the court found that the petitioners had already submitted written objections to the Mamlatdar and, by their own admission in those objections, had approached the Deputy Collector (Prant Officer) for redressal of the same dispute

The court noted that the petitioners suppressed the full details of their appellate proceedings while invoking writ jurisdiction

Since the statutory machinery under the Land Revenue Code provides for an appeal where procedural irregularities (like lack of notice) can be rectified, and since the petitioners had already set that machinery in motion, the court held that entertaining a simultaneous writ petition would be improper

The court found that the petitioners' grievances regarding the certification of mutation entry No. 4813 and the alleged lack of hearing are matters to be determined by the appellate authority

The petition was dismissed, but liberty was reserved for the petitioners to raise all legal and factual contentions before the appellate authority