Anil K. Narendran JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P7 proceedings dated 08.03.2021 and Ext. P10 report dated 01.02.2021 of the 3rd respondent Tahsildar (LR). The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 3 and 4 to conduct measurement of the property owned by the petitioner in Survey No. 1074/3 (New Survey No. 118/3) of Vellilapilly Village strictly following the directions in Ext. P6 judgment of this Court dated 14.07.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 791 of 2020, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court and till such time, not to dispossess the petitioner from the property covered by Exts. P1 to P4 documents. The further relief sought for is stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P7 to the extent it directs the petitioner to surrender the property alleged to have encroached, pending disposal of this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned Government Pleader would point out that Ext. P7 order of the 3rd respondent Tahsildar (LR) is appealable before the additional 5th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 16 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957.
4. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Das Agarwal [MANU/SC/0802/2013 : (2014) 1 SCC 603] the Apex Court held that non-entertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule and self imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the existence of alternative remedy. However, High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same, unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exists sufficient ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
5. In Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.[MANU/SC/0054/2018 : (2018) 3 SCC 85] the Apex Court reiterated that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not absolute but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be entertained if alternative statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well defined exceptions as observed in Chaabil Das Agarwal's case (supra), i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. After referring to the law laid d........