Single-Judge Justice Dinesh Mehta was dealing with a writ petition moved by a group of petitioners against an order of the trial court, which had rejected the injunction application moved by the petitioners under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
The Court had noted that the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1955 already provides for remedies before the appellate authority with regard to rejection of the injunction application by the trial court. Despite that, the petitioners in the instant case directly rushed to the High Court seeking remedy under writ jurisdiction which cannot be allowed, the Court said.
“A writ petition against rejection of TI application by the trial Court is not maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, as a hierarchy of appellate authorities have been provided in the Act of 1955. The petitioners are required to avail remedy of appeal available to them in accordance with law,” the Court observed.
Moreover, the Court also noted that the petitioners instead of availing the remedies before the appellate authority directly rushed to the High Court inter alia contending that the Tehsildar (one of the respondents) is going to dispossess them.
Considering the facts and the availability of remedy of appellate authority under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955, the High Court refused to entertain the petition and dismissed the same.
However, the Court said that the petitioners will be at liberty ato avail the legal remedy available under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955.
Source: Barandbench
