^''.i' '^^^^^•^^'w^^'^s^'S^^^sSS- HIGM iiBiBKBllt^ SIN<»£^a6l^^110NSl.gSltffi|t,S^:l^^ PETITK3NERS RESPGW re iWrit-f^tioti.lNlo.l^Ci»JiOli2808rl@:'^^^^^^^^^ 1.:^:.:':,Dee(^Lt&nrari*Bi»^ltTO^^^hn ^: :/^<3unw^sI3^J^eval|jSagei81fa!Stt23'?; y<^is,F^tde t^jBdBj|ci!cifl||r;^ 2. ^ ^itKuma^.lee^nSiOT^^ l..akhitainJeevan,ay9iNtf3K>uti'KF; ^ :1:^.1;:.':.:?':'' :'^^^ ^%^,1.:'::'.::':,^ehMatt g^Hot*sinoiiB^ ^mi^i^^eis^i^lii^i^Kys^K S^r':l^:l?"rel®'a8K(w%B^^ C^-;%^^<3's(tifiM'ilNMSBC®i81BWUWlliil:®? sK%M®'A'(19^®»>i^onl^G|BiN^KS^ ^:s.^i^sy||igar,{^^|^^ai^ f^K%:%,%i'Bsi.s8iB!iii8aic^,^o|g^^^ : '•is^:^.K:S;fWil^MMKiSB8iiiBWM%'i'¥^ .^®^iK)),'T^'l.s^aSe<jaisifioRS@^|!^;|^^ ^.;:%g4-:%:^IStat®(8B^tB(|B^iarSW ^'^Sec^rK^WSttFrosnt^'I'sivml&^?'^ ^^:^,^y^:?<^u|itiy'falannii^;<^^ :;;'^l:v,:^l',',Bhawan, Ratput.' <:::.:';"^ ^^^ ^ Present: ShnB.P.^harma.'laamalcounwlforttop^BoRer. ShriSai^ayS^Tawal.leami^G^l^tlitfcState^^o^ OfUU.OPOER . : • ';:.1,::.:.' :•..-'••. -':{RsBS©i^lQn54 iJE^?.:aX)^.:'. . : '-:: i:^y:::::: ;":\;^ Tl^caseofthepdjtiorie»s;inM ownere <rf the tand&fieant^l^hasara Nos. 748fl^^a^ measurh®^.372RectaressiU.iat8iny|ll^e.lan^ District. Th®peBUonere com|^ai that th®offiteery ofWe|©5©gWe>i^ns| Board, the fi^ r^pondentl'ierein, ^^out any^manj^of^^ in the abovelandhigh^andedly»nciaach8dupon?^ OccupaUonarKli^,Soallt^ng,"thap^»ion^ prayingforlwrit^<^flro<wlM^«re«ti^^ offtewS,:^UiieiFa8®nts^aiKl:'86i^nts:; bm^intwfaI^nn3W'^^ VS^'sSS'SSS'SSSSS'iSSSS'S, S..® fiSsSIWSSilUSIBIfiySUBSSIiBI V^SSSsiWSHKSSKSWSSSSSSi ^S^SSSSSiSiiSSsSssSSSBSSSS :^[^^:S®^i^ agSfiig '\ - »>•» the peBtionere over the above lands. The peflfioners have als.o sough ter mancfaimis (HrecUng ths concemed respondents-Stete auBiorifias to take cognizancs of crimlnat wrong alleged to have been committod by ttie ofRcers of the firet respondent and prosecute thsm. 2. Having heard Shri B.P Sharma, teamed camssl tor the petiltoners, 1 am not inclined to entertain this writ peSUon for more an one reason. Normafly, this Court under Arttele 226 of the Constih^on of India does not undertake adjudication of the disputes retafins to tiUe and possession obviously, because, in order to grant the retief, ft becomes imperative for the Court to permit the parties to lead evidence and tender witnesses to be cross-examined by each ottrer. Secondty, the remedies ttiat are availabte before the jurisdicBonal civil Court, ttiat is to say, private law review remedies, declaraUon, injunction and damages are quite comprehensive and more effective than the remedies that may be granted by this Court in a summary proceedlng under ArUcte 226. If ttie petitioners, as claimed by them, are the absolute owners and occupiers <rf the subject lands and the offlcere of the first respondent - Boaid without any manner of right or interest have been interfiering with the petitionere' possession, there is ateolutely no difliculty fbr the petiUoners to insUtute a suit before the jurisdteitlonal chril Court and seek effecttw pnvatB law review remedies. Simitariy, if the alteged action on Vt\e part ofttie officers of the firet respondent - Board tantamounte to commission of an offence punishabte under the criminal law of fte land, the p^Boners are also entiUed to prosecute them either by moving poltee authorlBes or filing private complaint uncter SecBon 200 of the Code of Crimlnal Procedure. There is absolutely no good and weighty reason for the Court to entertain this writ petition, particularty, whan the petiUonere have effecfive -5- altemative remedies before the jurisdictional civil Court. On that short ground, the writ peUtion is dismissed. All contentions raised in this writ petition are left open to be agitated before the jurisdictional civil Court. No coste. | g^ ChiefJustice u^v -r^