HIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREeHHAmSGARH:BILASPUR SINGLEBENCH: HON'BLE SHRIS.R. NAYAK, CJ. WritPetition No.1114 of 2003. <<iRttn aI/3ii^<<tp ' fe ^W 41rirt!1 *tf^,<1^4gt^^n<j'?,R@T Rcll'M^'i 5RT : 'OTE^ •H'(e|'< 11( ^"^F^RT fel^tlEt 311 R'-i*'; /^ ^i*^ ^ aipr gferap gNrTOR; ^ an: ^r»i5 IRIR ^ w 53 g^ 'Plrt qSPWft 'qRT, W^, tl^d ?5tST, tot ficll'dy'i (^TT.) -^g'- 3f1l^(;cpIT°1 ^- 1. W^PTS 5IRH ETRTlSldKSr fidl'H^'i {^X} 2.. g®rwfqicp aita^ 'VR w\w ^'\y g?. !pter, fSrar Rdi^y {m}: , ° :":. .1'. •; 3. wiffRCT ?Nt cllcbWI'W!! •yiRt*f1 fEfqpr, ^Il^ Rdwy'; {%"n'.} Present: Shri P.Diwaker, leamed Sr. ^lvocate with Shri P.R. Patankar.leameClcounselforthepetitioner. Shri Utkarsh Verma, learned Dy.G.A. for the State/ respondentsl and 3. Shri Ranbir Singh; learned counsel for respondent No.2. •th OralOrder (12Tn January,2006) A careful perusalof the averments 6f the writ petition woukf reveal tliat accordingtQthepetitioner.thepetitionstliedulepropertyis not the property ofthe Govemmentand it is the p perty ownecl^ a^^ possessed by Ram Jariki ^Mandir.^ It is, 'Uierefore, ;allege^ that the ' 'v '2- ^r- District Collector and other authorities ought not to have permitted removal of earth and stone for the purpose of construction of overhead tank in the shrine. With these allegations, the petitioner has prayed for thefollowingreliefe:- — 7.1 q? f^ ai'ji^cb'iufi' c^ ^^ ^rrit fttai^ii -iiiiilSrt Tf Inf^r ii!?;n ^RT ?THT 'B; ^ 'yiRiitiicb^I^ •sft wras 'ffe', m^ft ^ im, ^?', •WlRri ? SnlEWI 4 ^ ^^& >d4^illl ^ 'dWI'l 4 f^t 'ft 5R»TT W SR'^'qf^i^'cpft-ift'igcq^^zi^i 7.2 qg f^ 31'1|c|(ic|3'l"if ^f p|^[$|d f^IT ^lt ^ ^ '(Witli'il (WRI^) .:: •tef'l^ W^ ^^31^ pt^ ^^ 'drtd'l'l Wlf clit (Iffbld ^i 1 : /^~ "V 7.3 ^ ^ 1?RR9 WW ^ffltp 89/?-19/2001-2002 ^ 1S[cff (bdttri'i Kviwy. gro Tfff^rsn^Tf^tiq; 13.06.2002 ^ Pr.R?r I^IT ^i 7.4 qg ^? ff^FN EiT p anwi ^ fe ^Nfe, W^R^, ^ny ^ 3f^A(ttp'iuii gra f^ ^ ^qn^ ^ 4R"iiN^*4 i^ srf^ ^ ^ 31'1j^t;cb<|ujl ^T qf^; g7t |^ si^r ^r 5^ v^ ig ^fr? w^ 25000/- (^ TNfer g^Riira) Rciwi ^ i 7.5 ^g irrf^r f^[r ^rA Q) ^d^ w ^t (w Tsi^t) am^i? % 1 ? 2 ^ ^q^ •q? •Wlffirt qit ^ gtcR ^T <ft 'il^T; Hf^?, •<|14^*^, ^Fiy qit Tgi€t^ sracT ^rafer 11 7.6 q? ^ ri4'<|tW (CT T?? ^Rf^tRiyf ^ 3I^HR iTFFffa "y|ll|d^ ^HT ^RT wi^ ^HT aqdtT ^iftwraf ^t feii^ ^ q^ ^n ?t[ Ifthe petition schedule properiy is owned and possessea bythe petitioner - Rarrr Janki Mandir and there is any encroachment or interference bythestranger,thedeityFepresentedbythecommiUeeof the managementcould workoutthe! legal remedies by instituting asuit II:- % a... i^-, \ - ^- before the jurisdictional civil Court. This Court cannot be converted into acivil Court. The remedy that may be granted by the civil Court after adjudication and trial is more efHcacious, comprehensive and quite effective than the remedy that may be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution. Although, at the time of hearingjearned Senior Advocate for the petitionetwould restrict theclaim that a direction be issued to the respondent-State authorities to prevent encroachment and interference with the scheduleproperty by the strangers, that prayer cannot be granted for the obvious reason that in the writ petition it is specifically claimed that the schedule property is not the property of the Government. If the shrine were tosjtuatein the Government property, perhaps, the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner would have beeh considered favorably. Be that as it may, it is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is left with no legal remedies to protectthe schedule property. In the cireumstance, 1 dismiss the writ petition without expressingany opinion on the claims made by the petitioner and the contesting respondente in their respective pleadings. All the contentions are leftopen to be agrtated beforethe jurisdictional civil Court. 'KSd/- ChiefJustice fi^ ' v Ililllilli