JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner, Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf, Jaipur, by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is challenging the order dated 5th of March, 1990 of the District Collector, Alwar. Under the order aforesaid the District Collector, Alwar allotted the land measuring 10 Biswa from Khasra No. 2198, the total 'rakba' of which was 13 biswa, to the respondent No. 4 for construction of 'Sainik Vishraam Graha" in Village Mundawar, District Alwar. The nature of the land aforesaid has also been converted into 'aabadi'. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land in dispute is recorded in the revenue record as "gair mumkin kabristaan" and it vests in the petitioner. It being the "kabristaan', could not be allotted by the District Collector, Alwar in favour of the respondent No. 4 for construction of 'Sainik Vishraam Graha'. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the order of the District Collector, Alwar. 4. I have given my thoughtful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire record of the writ petition. 5. The land in dispute in the revenue record is recorded as 'gair mumkin kabristaan'. After taking into consideration this fact the District Collector, Alwar decided the application submitted by the respondent No. 4 and the disputed land has been allotted to the respondent No. 4 for construction of 'Sainik Vishraam Graha". The District Collector, Alwar granted this land in favour of the respondent No. 4 on the ground that in village Mundawar, Muslims are not residing. It is a question of fact and the petitioner has not controverted the same in the writ petition. 6. I have carefully gone through the writ petition and this finding of fact recorded by the District Collector, Alwar has not been questioned. The petitioner has also not produced any material on the record of the writ petition that the Muslims are residing in the Village Mundawar. The reply to the writ petition has been filed on 18th of September, 1990. In para No. 4 thereof the respondents made a specific pleading that in Village Mundawar Muslims are not residing. After commercial riots in 1947 it is stated that the land in, dispute was not being used by the Muslims as grave yard. The reply to the writ petition has been filed on 18th of September, 1990. In para No. 4 thereof the respondents made a specific pleading that in Village Mundawar Muslims are not residing. After commercial riots in 1947 it is stated that the land in, dispute was not being used by the Muslims as grave yard. As on the day of filing of the reply is it stated that the Muslims are not residing in the village. This pleading made by the respondents in the reply to the writ petition has not been controverted and it stands concluded. 7. The petitioner, before approaching this Court, also filed Civil Suit in the Court of Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar, Along with the suit he also filed an application for grant of temporary 'unction but that was rejected on 22nd of March, 1990. The appeal preferred against that order is stated to be pending. 8. From these facts it can reasonably be inferred that the petitioner after remaining unsuccessful to get the interim relief from the Civil Court, has shifted to the writ remedy. It is no more res integra that a litigant cannot avail simultaneously two parallel remedies in a matter. This is another ground on which no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 9. In the result the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed. *******