JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge thrown to order impugned dated 14.06.2016 in the present petition is that it has been passed by respondent No.3, i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, against the principle of natural justice by not providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and an exparte order by virtue of which mutation No.1303 attested under Government Order LB-6/C of 1958 and Government Order S-432 qua land measuring 31 Kanals and 10 Marlas falling under Khasra No.1297 has been cancelled, therefore, according to petitioner the order impugned is liable to be quashed. 2. Per contra, Mr. Ehsan Mirza, learned Dy.AG and Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, vehemently argued that instant petition is not maintainable in view of alternative remedy available to the petitioner. 3. I have gone through the contents of the petition, heard learned counsel for the parties minutely and perused the order impugned which reveals that it has been passed without affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 4. Identical issue has already been dealt by a coordinate Bench of this Court in case “Nissar Ah. Ganai Vs. State and Ors.”, reported as 2007 (1) JKJ 114 , paragraph 15 of the same is reproduced hereunder:- “15. I have considered the above submission of the learned counsel for the private respondents. In all cases, appeal is not an effective and efficacious remedy. When an order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the writ court can entertain the petition. Similar view has been taken by this court in the case of Hakeekat Singh v. State of J&K, OWP No. 1329/97, decided on 13th Feb, 98. In para 129 of the said judgment, it has been observed as under –Without commenting on the question whether the forum of appeal provided by Section 7 of the Distress Sales Act of 1997…..under the said Act would in all cases bar the relief in the writ jurisdiction on the principles of existence of alternative remedy, the provisions of said appeal against an order passed by District Magistrate, Srinagar, under Section 5 of the Act would not in the totality of facts and circumstances of this case come in the way of relief to which petitioner is found entitled in these writ proceedings. Even on consideration is not efficacious and effective enough to prevent the relief to the petitioner in this case. ” 5. Even on consideration is not efficacious and effective enough to prevent the relief to the petitioner in this case. ” 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, instant petition is disposed of and order impugned dated 14.06.2016 passed by respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, Jammu is set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to pass a fresh order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Petitioner is directed to appear before him on 16.09.2017, either in person or through his counsel. In the event, petitioner fail to appear before Deputy Commissioner, Jammu on the appointed date, he would be at liberty to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. 6. Disposed of as above along with connected MPs.