CWP No.1339 of 2008. 24.11.2008 Present: Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 7. According to the petitioner, his land was taken away at the time when the road was under construction. It has been alleged that the petitioner was harassed by the villagers and in the process there was social boycott of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the National Human Rights Commission wherein his petition was not entertained and the petitioner was informed about the same in November, 2006. Thereafter the petitioner kept quiet till filing of the petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that infact after November, 2006, the petitioner had filed writ petition claiming compensation of his land which had been taken away for the construction of the road. As soon as the villagers came to know about it, they socially boycotted him. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he fetches the water only in the night, when there was nobody in the village. No cogent explanation has been given by the petitioner for filing of this petition even after the refusal by the National Human Rights Commission. The petitioner has made vague allegation against one Mrs. Vidya Stokes that with the help of “Gundas”, she had inaugurated the road. We are of the considered opinion that the allegation of inauguration of the road against Mrs. Vidya Stokes, who was Minister at that point of time and now a leader of Opposition, is in bad taste and had not led to the social boycott of the petitioner. At the first sight allegation of the social boycott is taken seriously by the Court. However, in the light of the allegation made in this petition and for the period whereby the petitioner has not approached any -2- other authority concerned with respect to the boycott by lodging FIR or criminal complaint except one paragraph in the complaint before the National Human Rights Commission, there is nothing in the petition. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any reasonable ground to show any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. November 24, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (rc)