JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking relief to quash the order dated 24.7.1992 (Annx. P/13) and the order passed in pursuance thereof by the Collector, dated 10.8.1992 (Annx. P/14). 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and gone through the material on record. A preliminary objection is raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 to the effect that against the order dated 1Q.8.1992 (Annx. P/14 to the writ petition) passed by the Collector, appeal is provided under Section 75(1)(b) of the Land Revenue Act. 3. It is undisputed before me that the State Government has passed the order dated 24.7.1992 in exercise of its powers under Section 92 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and, in pursuance thereof the Collector has passed consequential order on 10.8.1992 (Annx. 14 to the writ petition). Admittedly, the order passed by the Collector, Annx. 14 to the writ petition, is appealable under sub-sec. (1)(b) of Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged before me that the deceased-petitioner Suraj Karan, whose heirs and legal representatives have been substituted, alongwith petitioners No. 2,3 and 4, are members of Scheduled Castes and only a small portion of land, for which the State Government has passed order under Section 92, has been regularised for the purpose of construction of 'Bara'. In support of his aforesaid argument, he invited my attention to the recommendations made in favour of the petitioners by Annx. P/1 to the writ petition by Naib Tehsildar on 24.12.1988. He further invited my attention to other annexures filed in support of his aforesaid contention. 4. Annexure P/2 on the record leads towards an irresistible conclusion that the land in dispute has been regularised on the basis of the order passed in Case No. 56/92. Similarly Case No.55/92 is mentioned in Annx. P/5 to the writ petition. Conspicuously, the petitioner has not placed on record the actual orders passed in Case No. 56/92 and Case No. 55/92. 5. According to learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5, no regularisation has been made, as required under sub- sec. (5) of Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. P/5 to the writ petition. Conspicuously, the petitioner has not placed on record the actual orders passed in Case No. 56/92 and Case No. 55/92. 5. According to learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5, no regularisation has been made, as required under sub- sec. (5) of Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. This is a disputed question of fact as to whether the land in dispute claimed by the petitioners has been actually regularised in their favour. Such disputed question of facts cannot be gone into under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The next argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 is that the instant writ petition be dismissed as the petitioner has alternative remedy available under sub-sec. (1)(b) of Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act; 1956. In my humble opinion, alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to entertain a writ petition. It is self-imposed limitation upon this Court. In a particular case, if the Court is satisfied that in order to prevent injustice and also to do material justice between the parties exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction is imperative then suitable orders in such situation can be passed. 7. In the instant case, it is apparent on the face of record that the petitioners belong to weaker section of the Society. They are members of Scheduled Castes. They are rustic villagers, not conversant with the legal proceedings and if on an incorrect legal advice in spite of filing an appeal they filed the writ petition before this Court, they should not be de-barred of their right to appeal before appropriate forum under sub-sec. (1)(b) of Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. In the present case, in order to do material justice between the parties, it will be proper to direct the petitioners to file an appeal under sub-sec. (1)(b) of Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Nagaur, within a period of thirty days from today. If such an appeal is filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Nagaur, within the aforesaid stipulated period then the appeal will be treated within limitation and the appellate authority will exercise its jurisdiction and will go into the disputed question of facts denied by the respondent No. 5. 8. If such an appeal is filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Nagaur, within the aforesaid stipulated period then the appeal will be treated within limitation and the appellate authority will exercise its jurisdiction and will go into the disputed question of facts denied by the respondent No. 5. 8. It is brought to my notice that on 29.10.1992, the following ad-interim stay order was passed by this Court: "29.10.92 HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI J.R. CHOPRA, MR. K.R. Chaudhary, for the petitioner Issue notice of the stay application. Rule is made returnable within 4 weeks & be given dasti for service. P.F. & notices be filed within 3 days. In the meanwhile, the possession of the petitioners on the disputed land will not be disturbed till further orders. It will be the responsibility of the petitioners to get the notices served on the respondents failing which the stay order comes to an end automatically." In my humble opinion, it will be expedient in the interest of justice to allow the ad-interim stay order to remain operative till the appeal is moved and the stay application thereto moved before the Revenue Appellate Authority is not finally disposed of. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is hereby disposed of.Writ disposed of. *******