ORDER : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The present writ petitions have been filed aggrieved of order dated 13.05.2024 whereby the Sub Divisional Officer, Nohar, District Hanumangarh was directed for mutation of the land in favour of the Public Works Department (PWD). 2. The facts as averred in the writ petitions are as under: (i) A road was proposed to be constructed from Nohar- Pallu to Nohar- Rawatsar i.e. from 0/0 to 5/4.00 km. As the Government did not have the land for construction of the road, the land was surrendered by the agriculturist of the concerned khasras. (ii) For the construction of road, sanction was received on 29.09.2023 and even Work Order dated 30.09.2023 was issued in favour of respondent No.7-contractor. (iii) At that point of time, respondent No.8-Purna Ram preferred a civil suit with an averment that as per the initial road route plan, the road was to pass through his khasra too but the Department was trying to change the alignment and hence, the respondent Authorities be injuncted from doing so. (iv) The temporary injunction application as filed by respondent Purna Ram in the said civil suit stood rejected vide order dated 09.11.2023 (Annex.4). (v) In the said suit, a written statement was filed by the State Authorities whereby it was specifically averred that the road was being constructed as per the sanctioned plan and Purna Ram was not entitled to claim that the road be constructed through his khasra also. Meaning thereby, it was an admitted fact of the State Authorities that the road was not proposed to be constructed through Khasra No.298/104 i.e. of Purna Ram. (vi). However, even after rejection of the temporary injunction application as preferred by respondent No.8 vide order dated 09.11.2023, the respondent Authorities sought to move application dated 13.05.2024 before the SDO with a prayer to record the lands as surrendered by the agriculturists in its favour so that the road be constructed on the same. The respondent Authorities, vide the said communication, included the land of Purna Ram and excluded that of the petitioner. Meaning thereby, the respondent Authorities changed the alignment of the road at the behest of respondent No.8 Purna Ram. 3. Vide order dated 20.05.2024, the SDO directed for mutation of the land in favour of the PWD. 4. It is the letter/communication dated 13.05.2024 which is under challenge in the present petitions. 5. Meaning thereby, the respondent Authorities changed the alignment of the road at the behest of respondent No.8 Purna Ram. 3. Vide order dated 20.05.2024, the SDO directed for mutation of the land in favour of the PWD. 4. It is the letter/communication dated 13.05.2024 which is under challenge in the present petitions. 5. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9944/2024, an alternate prayer for compensation qua the land on which the earthwork for the construction of the road was already undertaken, has been made. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11319/2024 6. In Para No.7 of the petition, a specific averment has been made as under: “That now the Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Hanumangarh with intent to give benefit to the respondent No. 8, leaving the proposed road, a new road is emerging 40 feet ahead and the rough work also has been started because in this new way, the respondent No.8's farm comes through this route and he is a politically influential person of the then Government and one of account holder Kiran Devi whose farm ahead to the Puranram, has opposed the above said new road and submitted an application to the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Block Nohar inter alia requesting that if the road is not built at the previously proposed way then the land surrendered by her should be handed back to her and mutation may kindly be cancelled because she had given consent only for constructing the road at the proposed way and the present petitioner has also filed a civil suit regarding with to make order to prohibit the respondent authorities to not construct the road on a new proposed way .” 7. A bare perusal of the above pleading reflects that a civil suit for the same remedy has already been filed by the petitioner. In that view, how the present writ petition could be maintained for the same relief, is not comprehensible. 8. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Daikin Air Conditioning Mazdoor Union, through its President Vs. Daikin Air Conditioning India Private Limited, through Manager & Anr.; 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 2339 , a person cannot be permitted to choose two forums in respect of the same subject mater for the same relief. No litigant can be permitted to avail two parallel remedies for the same relief. Daikin Air Conditioning India Private Limited, through Manager & Anr.; 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 2339 , a person cannot be permitted to choose two forums in respect of the same subject mater for the same relief. No litigant can be permitted to avail two parallel remedies for the same relief. When once the petitioner has preferred a civil suit, the present writ petition definitely cannot be entertained. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11319/2024 is therefore dismissed 9. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9944/2024 10. In this petition, a preliminary objection has been raised by counsel for the State to the effect that petitioner Kamal Kumar has no locus to file the present writ petition as he did not even surrender his land for construction of the road. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that he suffered any loss or would be entitled for any remedy. 11. Learned AAG submits that rather petitioner Kamal Kumar objected for the construction of the road and it is because of the said objection of the petitioner and two other agriculturists namely Shiv Shankar and Krishna Devi that the State Authorities were forced to change the plan. 12. On the above preliminary objection been raised by the counsel, this Court, vide order dated 12.07.2024, directed the petitioner to file specific documents to the effect that the land was surrendered by him. 13. In pursuance to the above order, an additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 21.07.2024 whereby affidavit dated 25.09.2023 was annexed. As per the petitioner, the said affidavit was filed by him before the respondent Authorities to surrender his 40 feet land in Khasra No.103/02 for construction of the road. 14. A counter to the above additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent State whereby a specific statement has been made that no affidavit was ever submitted by the petitioner to PWD, Division Nohar. 15. After hearing the counsels and perusing the documents as placed on record, this Court is of the clear opinion that it cannot be concluded that any affidavit so as to surrender the land was filed by the petitioner. The affidavit as annexed along with the additional affidavit is alleged to be of 25.09.2023. 15. After hearing the counsels and perusing the documents as placed on record, this Court is of the clear opinion that it cannot be concluded that any affidavit so as to surrender the land was filed by the petitioner. The affidavit as annexed along with the additional affidavit is alleged to be of 25.09.2023. Had the same been submitted by the petitioner, a specific pleading to the effect would definitely have been made in the writ petition which was filed on 06.06.2024. Interestingly, the affidavits as annexed with the writ petitions are those of Om Prakash Suthar and the other incumbents and not of petitioner Kamal Kumar. 16. Further, the pleadings as made in the writ petition regarding the affidavit are as under: “That it is relevant to mention here that for purpose to construction of the link road from one side to another, the acquisition process was not adopted and requested from the khatedari for surrender their land and given the consent for construction of the road by the PWD Department and all the khatedars have been submitted Tehsil heir consent/affidavit for construction of the road from their land including petitioner. The true and correct of copy of the affidavit submitted by the Khatedars are annexed with and marked as ANNEXURE-4 collectively.” 17. A bare perusal of the above pleadings makes it crystal clear that no affidavit was submitted by the petitioner at that point of time to surrender his land and the petitioner relied upon the affidavits of the other khatedars. 18. In view of the above, when the petitioner did not even give his consent to surrender his land for construction of the road, he can not be held entitled for any relief and that too, in a declaratory form to direct the State Authorities to construct the road passing through his khasra. 19. Further, as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.G. Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors.; (2022) 6 SCC 127 any contract of public service should not be interfered with lightly and in any case, there should not be any interim order derailing the entire process of the services meant for larger public good. 19. Further, as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.G. Projects Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors.; (2022) 6 SCC 127 any contract of public service should not be interfered with lightly and in any case, there should not be any interim order derailing the entire process of the services meant for larger public good. Therein, the Court observed that if the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. 20. In view of the above settled position of law, this Court is of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present petition. The writ petition stands disposed of. 21. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a civil suit for damages, if any of his land has been used for construction of road at the initial stage and not been finally used for the said purpose, causing a damage to the productivity of his agricultural land. 22. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.