Civil Writ Petition No. 7398 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No.7398 of 2008
Date of decision: 4.11.2008
M/s Vinod Brothers, through
Vinod Kumar Sood, Proprietor.
.....Petitioner.
Versus
Chandigarh Administration & others
....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH.
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.
Present:Mr.Anuj Raura, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr.K.K.Gupta,Advocate, for respondent
Nos. 1 to 4.
****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a
writ in the nature of mandamus directing an independent agency like
Central Bureau of Investigation to hold an independent enquiry into
the grave and serious irregularities and illegalities committed by
respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and for further direction to pay damages for
deliberate and wilful disobedience of the judgment and decree dated
2.11.2002 passed by Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Chandigarh,
whereby the rented accommodation in respect of which permanent
injunction had been granted in favour of the petitioner has been
demolished.
The petitioner is residing in a room rented out to him by
respondent No.5. He approached the Civil Court by way of filing a
civil suit for permanent injunction against respondent Nos. 2 and 5 to
protect the possession of the premises. The suit of the petitioner
Civil Writ Petition No. 7398 of 2008 [2]
was decreed in the following terms:
” …. In view of foregoing discussion, an ex parte
decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendants, restraining the defendants
from interfering in the peaceful possession of the
plaintiff over the disputed premises and not to
demolish one room and boundary wall measuring
covered area of 200 sq. yards, as detailed in the
head note of the plaint, forcibly or illegally except in
due course of law. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are,
however, free to proceed against the plaintiff in
accordance with law. There is no order as to
costs….”
The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that
respondent No.5, in collusion with official respondents, is harassing
him and are trying to demolish the rented accommodation and no
action is being taken against the said persons.
Written statement on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 has
been filed, which is on record.
Mr.K.K.Gupta, learned counsel appearing for
respondents No. 1 to 4, has raised a preliminary objection that
petitioner has encroached upon the government’s land in an
unauthorized manner and has constructed a room and boundary wall
over the said land. In this regard, many complaints were made by
the aggrieved persons of the locality and the Enforcement Wing of
Chandigarh Administration also lodged a complaint with the police
station vide DDR No.15 dated 21.8.2007 but the petitioner has not
removed the illegal encroachment made over the government’s
land. It has also been argued by Mr.Gupta that the civil Court,
Civil Writ Petition No. 7398 of 2008 [3]
Chandigargh, by an ex parte judgment and decree dated 2.11.2002,
has only directed defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the said suit not to
dispossess the plaintiff, except in due course of law and liberty was
also granted to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to proceed against the
plaintiff in accordance with law. The petitioner was asked to remove
the encroachment but the same has not been removed.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Order 39,
Rule 2-A, Civil Procedure Code, for taking action against the officials
of the Estate Office who removed his encroachments upon the
Government land. The competent authority has already filed the
reply to the said application but the petitioner is prolonging the matter
on one pretext or the other and the matter is still pending before the
civil Court.
We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the writ records.
Admittedly, the matter is still pending before the civil
Court and petitioner has no cause of action to file the present writ
petition. Even otherwise also, we have no sympathy for the
encroachers who have encroached upon the government’s land. The
writ petition is merely an abuse of the process of the Court and has
been filed without any cause of action. No relief can be granted
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed.
(UMA NATH SINGH) (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE JUDGE
4.11. 2008.
raghav