JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. 1. Heard Shri Awadhesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. Facts in brief of the present case are that in the matter in question, opposite party no.3 passed a resolution on 26.06.2009 whereby proposed the allotment of land in the name of 46 persons who are residence of village Gondari, Pargana-Bahraich, Tehsil-Ikauna, District-Shrawasti. Thereafter, the same was challenged by filing Case No.125 under Section 198 (4) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, dismissed by order dated 29.07.2011 passed by Collector/District Magistrate, Shrawasti. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Shri M. E. Khan, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that against the impugned order, the petitioner has got statutory remedy to file revision under Section 333 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act available to him, as such, the present writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice, so the present writ petition is not maintainable in respect of alternative remedy available to the petitioner by way of filing revision. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has got statutory remedy to file revision under Section 333 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act available to him, once the statutory remedy is available to petitioner under the statute itself then in that circumstances she should avail the same and writ petition filed by her under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable on the ground of availability of statutory remedy under the statute itself in view of the law as laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Company Limited and another Vs. State of Orissa and others (1983 )2 SCC 433 wherein it was held as under: - "Where a right or liability is created by statute which give special remedy for enforcing it, that must be availed as the said statute provides a complete machinery in order to challenge the impugned action taken therein in the statute itself and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." 7. In the case of Karnataka Chemical Industries and others Vs. Union of India and others (2000) 10 SCC 12, wherein it was held as under: - "When there is no challenge to the validity of any statutory provision, we see no reason as to why a writ petition should have been filed by passing the alternative remedy which is provided under the statute. On the short ground we dismiss this appeal, vacate the interim orders, direct the payment of the balance amount of duty along with interest @ 15% per annum with yearly rests. It will be open to the appellant to avail of such statutory remedy as may be available to it. If an appeal is filed within four weeks from today, the Department will take a lenient view in condoning the delay." 8. In the case of Central Coalfilds Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand and others (2005) 7 SCC 492 , wherein it was held as under: - "If there is statutory alternative remedy available to a person under an statute itself, in that case the writ petition should nto be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner is directed to avail the alternative statutory remedy." 9. In the case of Kanaiyalal Lal Chand Sachdev and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2011) 2 SCC 782 , in para Nos. 23 and 24 held as under: - "Para - 23 - In our opinion, therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy was available to the Appellants under Section 17 of the Act. It is well-settled that ordinarily relief under Articles?226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person. (See: Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. (2003) 3 SCC 524 ; Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. It is well-settled that ordinarily relief under Articles?226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person. (See: Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. (2003) 3 SCC 524 ; Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 675 ; State Bank of India v. Allied Chemical Laboratories and Anr. (2006) 9 SCC 252 ." Para - 24- In City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 168 , this Court had observed that: The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether: (a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; (b) the petition reveals all material facts; (c) the Petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute; (d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches; (e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation; (f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors." 10. Thus, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the order passed by opposite party no.1 is in violation of principles of natural justice, is wholly misconceived and liable to be rejected. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground that petitioner has got statutory remedy to file revision under Section 333 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act available to him against the impugned order under challenge in the present writ petition. 12. However, as prayed, if the petitioner files revision under Section 333 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act before the Court concerned, the same shall be considered subject to law of limitation.