1. Quashment of order dated 24.2.2011, passed by Joint Financial Commis­sioner (AR) with powers of Financial Commissioner, Srinagar, in revision petition captioned Mohammad Maqsood Rather v. Mohammad Hussain & anr, is sought. 2. Landed property of petitioner and respondent No. 2 covered by survey No. 1329-min and 1330 situated in village Mantrigam Bandipora, is situated adjacent to each other. Right of user through the land of petitioner so as to reach to the land of respondent No. 2 was claimed to be existent but no such entry existed in the revenue records. Dispute arose when allegedly petitioner fenced his portion of land. Tehsildar, Bandipora inspected the spot on 18.5.2006 for verification in presence of villagers as well as the parties. He found that the petitioner had blocked the path running through survey No. 1329 subjecting the respondent No. 2 to inconvenience. Detailed order on verification was passed and the position of existence of path has been reflected in the revenue records in the year 2006, pathway, as such, was restored. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora and also the revision petition before the Financial Com­missioner. The said revision petition has been dismissed. While doing so, it has been opined that there is no infirmity in the order, more so, when the parties have entered into an agreement registered by Sub-Registrar, Bandipora dated 29.4.2008, wherein existence of pathway through land under Survey No. 1329 leading to Survey No. 1330 has been admitted. It has also been observed that the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, in view of his order, shall automatically stand disposed of. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 questioned the maintainability of the petition by stating that factual dispute has been gone into by the revenue agency and now again factual dispute is projected which cannot be looked into in writ jurisdiction. Further it is projected that a civil suit filed by the petitioner pertaining to the validity of the agreement dated 29th April, 2008, is already pending, so parallel proceedings will result in conflicting orders. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order impugned has been passed in a slipshod manner, so has to be set aside. 6. Further it is projected that a civil suit filed by the petitioner pertaining to the validity of the agreement dated 29th April, 2008, is already pending, so parallel proceedings will result in conflicting orders. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order impugned has been passed in a slipshod manner, so has to be set aside. 6. Copy of the plaint titled Mohammad Maqsood Rather v. Mohammad Hussain Rather & anr, as placed on record, is suggestive of the fact that the petitioner has challenged the validity of the agreement dated 29th of April, 2008 and has also pleaded therein that no path existed through survey No. 1329. Prayer has also been made therein for prohibiting the respondent (defendant therein) from causing any interference with the land covered by survey No. 1329. 7. The order passed by Tehsildar and up-held by the Financial Commissioner has to be subservient to the outcome of the suit. The factual aspect relatable to the existence or non-existence of the path through survey No. 1329 is better not to be commented upon lest either party may get prejudiced and the results of the suit, as is pending, may also get influenced. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has rightly placed reliance on the judgment captioned Mohan Pandey & anr v. Usha Rani Rajgaria (Smt) & ors, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 61 , wherein it has been held: "A regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons. The remedy under Article 226 shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged." 9. In the instant case the dispute essentially relates to the right of user in between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. The Joint Financial, arrayed as respondent No. 1, has acted in accordance with law. No violation is alleged against the statutory duty except that the matter has not been properly appreciated, which in fact is relatable to the question of fact which this Court in writ jurisdiction cannot go into. 10. The Joint Financial, arrayed as respondent No. 1, has acted in accordance with law. No violation is alleged against the statutory duty except that the matter has not been properly appreciated, which in fact is relatable to the question of fact which this Court in writ jurisdiction cannot go into. 10. Again learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has rightly placed reliance on the judgment captioned Jai Singh v. Union of India & ors ( AIR 1977 SC 898 ), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court while noticing that after dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court, appellant therein had filed a suit in which he agitated the same question which is the subject matter of the writ petition, held that the appellant cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of same matter at the same time. 11. The remedy of availing writ jurisdiction in the given circumstances and the law is not available to the petitioner on two counts, firstly disputed question of fact is involved which can be better gone into by the Civil Court where the suit is pending between the parties and secondly the order of the revenue authorities being relatable to the disputed question of fact is subservient to the findings in the civil suit. 12. Petition is dismissed as not maintainable leaving it open to the parties to contest the disputed matter relatable to the right of user before the Civil Court where suit is pending.