JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 09.03.2015 passed by the District Collector, Nagaur, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 73(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 ('the Act') has been rejected leaving it open for the petitioner to prosecute his civil remedy. 2. The petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 73(2) of the Act questioning the validity of the resolution/order dated 24.10.2011 passed by the Municipal Board, Nagaur, whereby the land in question was regularised in favour of respondent No.4- Ikramuddin and a sale deed dated 14.11.2011 was registered in his favour. 3. Initially the respondent No.4 questioned the jurisdiction of the District Collector, the application was rejected vide order dated 17.11.2014 holding that the District Collector had the jurisdiction. 4. Aggrieved against the order, the respondent No.4 filed revision petition before the Director, Local Bodies, which revision petition was rejected. 5. Whereafter, after hearing the parties, the Collector by the impugned order, on noticing that a civil suit pertaining to the land in question filed by the petitioner herein was pending consideration before the civil court, passed the following order:- " mijksDr fo'ys"k.kkRed foospu ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dh tSj fuxjkuh esa fookfnr iV~Vs dh Hkwfe ds futh LokfeRo dh Hkwfe ds laca/k esa flfoy vf/kdkjksa dk ekeyk gS tks flfoy U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu mDr okn vuqlkj vfUre fu.kZ;kuqlkj izdj.k esa vkxkeh dk;Zokgh gksuh gSA vr% izkFkhZ dh fuxjkuh bl LVst ij [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk lacaf/kr i{kdkjku dks flfoy U;k;ky; esa pkjktksgh djus gsrq Lora= j[kk tkrk gSA fu.kZ; dh izfr ds lkFk uxj ikfydk e.My ukxkSj dks i=koyh ykSVk;h tkosA fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA " 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Collector was not justified in dismissing the revision petition only on account of pendency of the suit filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that power under Section 73 of the Act is independent and even if the petitioner had filed the suit, the legality and validity of the action of the Municipal Board, wherein the resolutions were passed and the sale deed was executed in favour of the respondent No.4 could have been examined by the Collector. It is submitted that power under Section 73 of the Act is independent and even if the petitioner had filed the suit, the legality and validity of the action of the Municipal Board, wherein the resolutions were passed and the sale deed was executed in favour of the respondent No.4 could have been examined by the Collector. It is submitted that once the preliminary objection raised by the respondent No.4 was rejected by the Collector by order dated 17.11.2014 and revision petition was rejected by order dated 29.12.2014 by the Director, Local Bodies, it was not appropriate on part of the Collector to dismiss the revision petition merely on account of pendency of the suit. 7. With reference to various documents filed in the writ petition, counsel for the petitioner sought to emphasise that the entire proceedings before the Board were absolutely illegal and the illegality is writ large on the record and, therefore, the order impugned dated 09.03.2015 deserves interference by this Court. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. 9. The petitioner has produced a copy of the plaint filed by him as Annex.-15 and in the suit, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- 15- fd vuqrks"k oknh fuEufyf[kr gS%& ( d ) fd oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ls izfroknh bdjkeqnhu dks csn[ky oknxzLr Hkw[k.M dk dCtk oknh dks fnyk;s tkus dh fMdzh ikfjr dh tk;sA ( [k ) fd oknxzLr Hkw[k.M dk cspku izfroknh la[;k nks }kjk izfroknh bdjkeqnhu ds gd esa fu"ikfnr o fnukad 14-11-2011 dks mi iath;u dk;kZy; ukxkSj esa iathc) djk;k x;k ml cspkuukes dks jn~n djus dh ?kks"k.kk dh tk;s rFkk lkFk ds lkFk fu;eu vkns'k dks Hkh jn~n fd;k tk;sA ( x ) okn dk [kpkZ izfroknhx.k ls oknh dks fnyk;k tk;sA ( ?k ) vU; vuqrks"k tks ykHkkFkZ oknh gks iznku fd;k tk;sA 10. Admittedly, the suit was filed prior to filing of the revision petition by the petitioner. Admittedly, the suit was filed prior to filing of the revision petition by the petitioner. The Collector by the impugned order dated 09.03.2015 on noticing the pendency of the suit and on coming to the conclusion that while the suit filed by the petitioner pertaining to the ownership/possession of the land in question is pending consideration before the civil court, it would not be appropriate for the said authority to exercise jurisdiction under Section 73 of the Act and, consequently, rejected the revision petition at that stage and kept it open for the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the civil court. 11. Admittedly, the suit filed by the petitioner and the relief therein encompass the relief sought in the revision petition as well, wherein besides seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 14.11.2011, the petitioner has also sought cancellation of the regularisation order and has sought possession of the suit property. 12. Once the comprehensive suit filed by the petitioner was pending before the civil court, the present revision petition was filed by the petitioner seeking essentially the same relief, which was already sought in the suit and the same was merely multiplying the remedies available to the petitioner. 13. Merely because more than one remedies are available to a party, it is not necessary/desirable that the parties would seek all the remedies simultaneously and would take chance before several authorities i.e. before the Civil Court as well as before the Collector and, therefore, once the pendency of the suit filed by the petitioner was noticed by the Collector, it cannot be said that the Collector was not justified in relegating the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the civil court. 14. So far as the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner pertaining to the documents and the so called illegalities apparent on face of record is concerned, the said aspect can always be agitated by the petitioner in the pending suit and it cannot be said that it was necessary for the Collector to exercise jurisdiction under Section 73 of the Act.In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******