JUDGMENT Satyendra Singh Chauhan and Anil Kumar,JJ. Heard Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.10.2004 passed by Atirikt Adhikari, Kheri by which the petitioner's suit under Section 229-B/209 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act registered as Regular Suit No. 130 (Uma Shanker and others Vs. Van Vibhag and others) has been rejected. 3. A query has been made to the learned counsel for the petitioner that against the impugned order the petitioner has got statutory remedy of appeal under the statute which governs the field, so the present present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground. 4. Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, in rebuttal, submits that the impugned order passed by Atirikt Adhikari, Kheri/respondent No. 4 is illegal and without jurisdiction, so petitioner can challenge the same by way filing present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 6. It is too late in the day to quarrel that if the petitioner has got statutory remedy available to him against the impugned order, which he has challenged under Article 226 of Constitution of India; the statute which governs the field will determine the jurisdiction then in that circumstance the writ petition filed by the petitioner will not be maintainable in view of the law as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme 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. 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 not 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. (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. (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, keeping in view the abvoesaid facts as well as taking into consideration the facts of the present case that by means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.10.2004 passed by Atirikt Adhikari, Kheri/respondent No. 4 by which the petitioner's Regular Suit No. 130 (Uma Shanker and others Vs. Van Vibhag and others) under Section 229-B/209 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been dismissed, the same cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and for the said purpose he has to file an appeal under the statute which governs the field. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is lacks merit and is dismissed on the ground of maintainability of statutory remedy of appeal. 12. However, as prayed, the petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate court by filing appeal for redressal of his grievances raised in the present writ petition and if the same is done by the petitioner, the order passed by State Government which is an offshoot passed during the pendency of the present proceeding, the same shall not come in the way of the petitioner and the appeal be decided on merit.