JUDGMENT 1. - It is submitted by Mr. Paras Kuhad, learned counsel, that petitioners purchased land in the public auction from the erstwhile Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur, in the year, 1981. The petitioners entered into an agreement with M/s Allegheny India Construction Company (in short, 'M/s. Allegheny'), whereby it was agreed that 25% of the cost of the building would be borne by the petitioners- Company and the balance 75% by the M/s. Allegheny. It was also agreed that after completion of the construction, the building would be leased out to M/s. Allegheny at the rate of 1.5 per sq. ft. of a carpet area per month. The petitioners are receiving rent from the M/s. Allegheny regarding basement and four other floors. The total calculation of rent comes to 34999.00 per months. The rent became payable from August 1, 1987. Since then, M/s. Allegheny are paying the rent at the above rate. The petitioners-Company was assessed for Lands and Buildings Tax by following the procedure laid down under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Lands and Buildings TAx Act, 1964 (for brevity, 'the Act, 1964'). Vide order dated 30.5.89 (Anx. 1), the market value of the land and building as on 1.4.73 was assessed at 40 lacs. The above assessment order was re-opened under Section 15-B of the Act, 1964 suo moto by the Assessing Authority by his order dated 9.1.91 (Anx.2). Thereafter, re-assessment was made and value of the land has been assessed at the market value of Rs. 3,06,000/- as on April 1, 1982 and tax has been demanded w.e.f. the assessment year, 1982-83. As regards the building, it has been assessed at the market value of Rs. 74,24,000/- as on April 1, 1987 and w.e.f. April 1, 1989, its market value has been assessed at Rs. 1,22,76,700/- and the tax for the year, 1987-88 has been demanded at 1,04,360 and with effect from the assessment years, 1989-90 at the rate of Rs. 1,77,150/-. An application was filed for rectification under Section 22 of the Act, 1964, which was rejected. 2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that no re-assessment can be made as there is no provision in the Act, 1964. Further, rent capitalised method of assessment could not be applied to the petitioners. 1,77,150/-. An application was filed for rectification under Section 22 of the Act, 1964, which was rejected. 2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that no re-assessment can be made as there is no provision in the Act, 1964. Further, rent capitalised method of assessment could not be applied to the petitioners. It is further pointed out that under Section 13 of the Act, 1964, the relevant date for valuation can be April 1, 1982, since the land was acquired in the year, 1981. The buildings were constructed on different dates. It is also pointed out that a separate writ petition has been filed on behalf of M/s. Allegheny as the provisions of the Act, 1964 apply only to owners and not to any other person. It is submitted that the order is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the writ should be entertained and relief may be granted to the petitioners. 3. I have heard the learned counsel and also gone through the documents on record. Section 60 provides for appeal and an appeal does lie against any order passed under Section 15-B to the Collector of the District, where the building is situated or such other Authority as the State Government may notify in the official gazette. However, the petitioners, instead of filing an appeal, have approached this Court by way of writ petition. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the appeal will be entertained only when the whole tax as assessed is deposited. The learned counsel has placed reliance on M/s. Filterco v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P, AIR 1986 SC 626 , which was also referred to by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1357/90 (The Indian Hotels Company Limited v. The State of Rajasthan and another) , decided on August 10, 1990. This was a case, in which exemption was claimed by the assessee from the sales tax in respect of certain items of compressed woollen felts. An application was filed by the assess for determination of question of tax ability. The earlier order of exemption from tax was changed and the Commissioner took different view and refused exemption. A writ petition was filed before the High Court, which was dismissed. An application was filed by the assess for determination of question of tax ability. The earlier order of exemption from tax was changed and the Commissioner took different view and refused exemption. A writ petition was filed before the High Court, which was dismissed. The Apex Court observed that the order passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, was clearly binding on the authority under Section 42-B, although technically, it would have been open to the appellants to urge their contentions before Appellate Authority, namely, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, which would have been a mere exercise in futility when a superior officer, namely, the Commissioner had already passed a well considered order in exercise of his statutory jurisdiction. It was further pointed out that a substantial portion of tax had also to be deposited before an appeal or revision can be filed. In such circumstances, the High Court ought to have considered and pronounced upon the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. In the above matter, the order of imposing tax liability was passed by a superior officer than the appellate authority, which was to hear the matter of assessment. However, the situation is not same in the present matter. The appellate authority, as provided under Section 16 of the Act, 1964, is higher authority and the whole matter will be considered in accordance with the provisions of law. If a view is taken that merely because the provisions of the Act require that the tax should be deposited before the appeal is filed, which is returnable, in case the appeal is allowed, it will mean that no assessee will ever file an appeal and will always directly approach this Court, under its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this way, provisions of appeal will become redundant. The Apex Court merely mentioned an ancillary ground in the case of M/s. Filterco (supra), regarding deposit of substantial amount with appeal, but the main ground, on which the decision is based, was that the order refusing the exemption of tax was passed by the higher authority than the one which has to hear the appeal. This authority is, therefore, of no help to the petitioner. The learned counsel also pointed out relying on Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, (1985)3 SCC 267 , that the alternate remedy is no bar to entertain a writ petition. This authority is, therefore, of no help to the petitioner. The learned counsel also pointed out relying on Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, (1985)3 SCC 267 , that the alternate remedy is no bar to entertain a writ petition. There is no doubt that this Court can entertain writ petition, even when an alternate remedy does exist, but I do not find any circumstances in the present matter, on account of which, the alternate remedy may be ignored and the writ petition be entertained. The Act, 1964 itself provides effective remedy of appeal, which can be availed of by the petitioners and the ground that is available with M/s. Allegheny in another writ petition that they are not even owners of the property, hence not liable to tax under Section 3 of the Act, is not available to the petitioners, who, admittedly, are owner of the property. 4. I do not find any force in this writ petition, which is, therefore, dismissed, in limine.Petition dismissed. *******