1. Petitioners and private respondents have been locked inter se in attritional litigation for quite a long time, though the matter could have been resolved by the competent authorities within a short span of period. This, despite the fact that the parties hereto, on the one pretext or the other, have approached almost all the forums, i.e., Irrigation authorities, Revenue courts, Writ Court and the LPA Bench of this Court. The controversy between them has, thus, been complicated, which needs to be deprecated and restricted. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that mutation Nos. 722 to 741 dated 04.09.2006; Nos. 742 to 761 dated 16.12.2006 and mutation No. 762 dated 02.06.2007, were made in favour of the writ petitioners and others. It is stated that occupancy rights in forest land under Aillan No. 10 of 1979 read with Aillan No. 38C of 1989 were conferred on them by the Tehsildar Kargil. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the private respondents 4 to 6 questioned the said mutations by medium of various appeals. Notices were issued to all the respondents therein, including the writ petitioners. Interim direction was made by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu & Kashmir, Srinagar, in terms of order dated 15.04.2008 and the matter was directed to be posted on 06.05.2008. In the meantime, it appears that an application was presented by the appellants therein for treating the said appeals as Revision petitions under Section 15 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, 1996 (1939 AD) (for Short ‘Land Act’) which was allowed and granted vide order dated 09.05.2008. It will be useful to reproduce the said order, which reads as under: “Presented by the Counsel for petitioners today on 09.05.2008. The appeals filed by the petitioners earlier are treated as Revisions. Order already issued vide No. FC/AP-31-33 dated 15.04.2008 shall apply mutatis mutandis.” 4. After noticing the pendency of appeals, interim order aforementioned, treating the appeals as revisions, the writ petitioners filed a review petition in terms of provisions of the Land Act on the ground that the interim order passed, treating the appeals as revision petitions, is illegal and are not in consonance with the mandate of the provisions of the Act. They also filed objections seeking vacation of the interim order, which, as per the record, is still pending on the dockets of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) J&K, Srinagar. 5. They also filed objections seeking vacation of the interim order, which, as per the record, is still pending on the dockets of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) J&K, Srinagar. 5. What is seen further is that the writ petitioners have also moved a motion on 16.06.2010 for vacating the interim direction ordered on 15.04.2008 under Section 151 read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lis is still pending before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) J&K, and other ancillary applications are yet to be considered and, in the midst, the petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by medium of the instant writ petition, on the ground that the entire proceedings before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, are without jurisdiction and be quashed accordingly, as the orders have been passed at the back of the petitioners. It is further stated that the appeals were not the remedy and, even if so, were time barred by limitation. It is further stated that virtually, these appeals are incomplete, ineffective and defective. It is seen from the record that they have also questioned the authority, power and competence of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) for treating the appeals as Revision, though they have already taken these pleas by laying a motion for reviewing the orders in question, which is still on the dockets of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, J&K, Srinagar, and is pending. 6. The writ petition came up for consideration before one of the Coordinate Benches of this Court on 24.06.2010. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, notice was issued to the respondents and, in the interim application, a direction came to be issued to the Canal Officer to consider the claim of the parties and take a decision thereon after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, within a period of two weeks from the date copy of that order was served on him. It was further provided that the Canal Officer will consider and pass appropriate orders irrespective of the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, and, in the meantime, orders dated 15.04.2008 and 09.05.2008 were kept in abeyance and it is by way of this direction the proceedings before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, has remained standstill for the last more than two years. 7. 7. It is amazing to see that during the pendency of the writ petition at hand, the Canal Officer passed the order which became subject matter of another writ petition, bearing OWP No. 597/2012, filed by the private respondents herein. Not only that, the private respondents have also questioned the order dated 24.06.2010 by medium of Letters Patent Appeal, bearing LPA No. 54 J/2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 09.07.2012 with the request to Writ Court to hear the entire controversy. The Division Bench of this Court has already stayed the order dated 24.06.2010 in terms of order dated 14.09.2010 and, while disposing of the Letters Patent Appeal, it was thought proper by the Division Bench that the order passed in LPA on 14.09.2010 shall remain in force till the matter is decided by the Writ Court. 8. Mr. Qayoom, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated at the Bar that the matter be decided by this Court without any further delay. He has sternly questioned the jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, and the interim directions passed by him. 9. The respondents have filed the reply. In response thereto, Mr. Qayoom has filed the rejoinder, which, in turn, constrained the writ respondents to file a supplementary affidavit along with certain documents. 10. The documents submitted by the parties are photocopies of the revenue extracts, orders/judgments made by the Civil Courts from time to time and orders made by the Settlement Officer, Collector and other Revenue agencies. 11. Mr. R. A. Jan, learned Senior Advocate, while rebutting the averments made in the writ petition, took a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable because the writ petitioners have the remedy available which they have availed and the lis is still pending before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, and because of the pendency of the writ petition, the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, is not in a position to settle the controversy. Admittedly, the bone of contention is as to: i. Whether the orders made by the revenue authorities are legal and valid within the parameters of revenue laws applicable along with the standing orders passed from time to time? ii. Whether the appeals are incompetent, ineffective and defective, and time barred? iii. Whether the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, was having the powers to treat the appeals as Revisions? 12. ii. Whether the appeals are incompetent, ineffective and defective, and time barred? iii. Whether the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, was having the powers to treat the appeals as Revisions? 12. To have the answer to all these issues, I deem it appropriate to refrain from expressing any opinion at this stage, for the simple reason that the matter is pending before the highest Revenue Authority of the State, and in terms of the relevant provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Land Revenue Act, 1966, it is for that Authority to decide the said issues. Moreso, law is no more res integra that when alternative remedies are available, writ petitions are not maintainable. However, if a proceeding is drawn without jurisdiction, or by an authority not having the jurisdiction, alternative remedy may not come in the way of the aggrieved party to file the writ petition in exceptional circumstances But, if an aggrieved party has already invoked the jurisdiction of an authority by filing review petition and other miscellaneous motions, as in the case at hand, and has subjected himself/themselves to the jurisdiction of that authority for seeking appropriate orders, can such party/parties file a writ petition despite having availed the remedy on the ground of jurisdiction. The answer clearly has to be in negative. I am fortified in this view by a judgment of the apex Court in a case titled Karuna Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi and anr., reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2621. It may be appropriate to notice paragraphs 5 & 6 of the judgment hereunder: “5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner as also, the judgments relief upon by him. We are astonished at the submissions advanced at the hands of learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner herein is seeking directions to the concerned Magistrate as a matter of first instance at the hands of this Court. The submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner by themselves conceded, that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, yet he has chosen to come to the highest Court of the land, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner by themselves conceded, that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, yet he has chosen to come to the highest Court of the land, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Even though the order passed by the Magistrate (negotiable Instruments Act) dated 9.9.2009 and the said proceedings are still pending, the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court. While doing so the petitioner has even cast aspersions on the High Court by pleading and contending that the High Court had, till date, not taken a final decision in the matter. It would also be relevant to mention, that besides filing Criminal M. C. No. 3668 of 2008, the petitioner has also filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court at Delhi, wherein she had assailed the order passed by the Magistrate (negotiable Instruments Act) dated 2.5.2011. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner has admittedly sought directions to the Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act) to control the petitioner’s cross examination (at the hands of the respondent No.2). The aforesaid writ petition is still pending consideration before the High Court. The High Court has stayed the payment of costs imposed on the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is, that the High Court has failed to stay the further cross examination of the petitioner, with reference to the charge-sheet filed in case FIR No. 13 of 2004. Surprisingly, when the prayers made by the petitioner before this Court are pending adjudication before the High Court at Delhi, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, without assailing any order passed by the High Court. This, in our considered view, amounts to gross misuse of the jurisdiction of this Court. Such a behavior at the hands of the petitioner cannot to countenanced. The effort of the petitioners seems to be, to browbeat either respondent No. 2, or the Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act), so that the proceedings progress as per the desire of the petitioner. In her aforesaid effort, the petitioner has also cast aspersions against the High Court. 6. This is not a case where despite availability of an alternative remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court under its writ jurisdiction. In her aforesaid effort, the petitioner has also cast aspersions against the High Court. 6. This is not a case where despite availability of an alternative remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court under its writ jurisdiction. This is a case where the petitioner has availed of her alternative remedies, and simultaneously on the same cause of action, she has approached the higher court of the land under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. This constitutes a gross abuse of the process of law. We are satisfied that an efficacious alternative remedy is available to a party which has initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. In the present case the petitioner has approached the High Court at Delhi under Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and through a separate petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Both the petitions are still pending before the High Court. It is not possible for us to accept that the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India have been violated in any manner whatsoever, so as to enable him to approach this Court, in the manner suggested. If the instant plea of the petitioner is accepted, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India will become available against every action of a Magistrate, not only under the Negotiable Instruments Act, but also, in respect of criminal proceedings conducted under other statutory provisions.” 13. Thus what emerges from the pleadings of the parties and the judgment supra, the writ petition merits to be dismissed on this preliminary ground alone? Nonetheless, I am conscious that the parties have been entangled in this lis for a pretty long time and are trying to get the issue settled for good. 14. In the aforementioned backdrop and in view of the given situation as discussed hereinabove, I direct the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, Srinagar, to determine the issues after hearing learned counsel for the parties. It is made clear that the writ petitioners are at liberty to raise all the issues before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, Srinagar, which were projected and pleaded in the writ petition at hand. It is made clear that the writ petitioners are at liberty to raise all the issues before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, Srinagar, which were projected and pleaded in the writ petition at hand. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one month positively, which period shall reckon from 1st of October, 2012. I hope and expect that the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, will decide the matter within the stipulated time frame as mentioned above. The learned Registrar Judicial, Srinagar, is directed to remit the record to the concerned Courts forthwith, particularly to the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, Srinagar. He shall send a special messenger for this purpose so that the office of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, receives the file latest by tomorrow evening along with copy of this judgment, besides the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench. The parties shall cause their appearance before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, Srinagar, on 1st of October, 2012. Till the matter is decided by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, Srinagar, the direction passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.09.2010 read with order dated 09.07.2012 shall hold the field. 15. Viewed thus, the writ petition is dismissed along with CMPs with costs quantified at Rupees twenty thousand to be paid by the writ petitioners. The costs so imposed shall be deposited by the petitioners within four weeks with the Registry of this Court, who in turn shall deposit the same in the Advocates Welfare Fund. OWP No. 597/2012: 16. The order which is subject matter of the writ petition at hand is under eclipse in terms of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.09.2010 and 09.07.2012 read with the order passed in the aforementioned writ petition. 17. With these observations, this writ petition shall also stand dismissed along with all connected CMPs. The direction contained in the writ petition aforementioned shall also hold good.