Judgment:
Writ Petition No.17781/2012 12.3.2013 Shri R.K.Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on admission.
The petitioner is a private contractor.
He had undertaken certain construction work on the land belonging to Ramesh Chandra Jain and Sudhir Kumar Jain.
Earlier the land was taken on lease by these persons from the Town Improvement Trust which was later merged with the Municipal Council, Sagar.
On a complaint made by Patwari that petitioner is making construction on a government land, the Tahsildar vide order dated 25.9.2012 directed him to immediately stop the construction work.
According to the petitioner, he challenged the order dated 25.9.2012 before the Board of Revenue which vide order dated 27.9.2012 stayed its operation.
The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the stay order passed by the Board of Revenue respondent no.6 Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sagar demolished the construction work against which he has made a report, Annexure P12 dated 2.10.2012 at the Police Chowki Cantt, Sagar but no action has been taken.
It is in this background the petitioner has prayed that directions be issued to the higher authorities for taking appropriate action against respondent no.6.
The petitioner has also prayed that he be awarded compensation.
Annexure P12, is a report made by the petitioner to the Station Officer of Police Chowki Cantt, Sagar.
Therefore, if the petitioner feels that no action has been taken by the Station Officer, he is at liberty to send the substance of such information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police as provided under section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and thereafter he also has a remedy of filing a complaint case.
In the case of Minu Kumari versus State of Bihar, (2006) 4 SCC 35.(para
16) the Supreme Court has held that when the information is laid with the police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant is given power under section 190 read with section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code.
Relying upon an earlier decision rendered in the case of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees’ Union (Reg) versus Union of India, the Supreme Court has observed that under these circumstances, writ petition should not be entertained.
As regards the relief of compensation the petitioner can file a civil suit.
It is also to be noted that the alleged owners of the land have not approached any authority against respondent no.6 for demolishing the construction made by the petitioner.
Apparently, there appears to be a factual dispute regarding the ownership of land from which construction has been demolished.
For these reasons, I find no good ground to admit the petition.
It is accordingly dismissed summarily.
JUDGE ss