C.W.P. No.16943 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.16943 of 2011 Date of Decision.09.09.2011 Balbir Singh Chahal son of late Babu Singh resident of village Khanpur, Tehsil and Distt. Ludhiana (now residing 95-HIGHAM ROAD, TOTTENHAM LONDON N176 NL ENGLAND U.K.) through attorney Smt. Harinder Kaur Chahal w/o Balbir Singh Chahal resident of Khanpur Tehsil and District Ludhiana .....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab through Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Punjab, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to hold an investigation on an alleged removal/destruction of a Will registered the office of the Sub Registrar, Ludhiana. There is no dispute about the fact that the Will had been lodged before the Sub Registrar for registration and the petitioner had also obtained registration coy of the Will. It appears that the petitioner wanted to inspect the original document and at that time it was learnt that the register retained with a duplicate copy of the document of the Will was not available with the Sub Registrar's office. On a complaint by him for the loss, Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana had informed the petitioner that an enquiry was being conducted in his office as to how the record C.W.P. No.16943 of 2011 -2- had been misplaced to fix the responsibility of the officer in that regard. This reply dated 19.08.2010 did not come to any fruitful action and the petitioner has sent reminder again on 18.08.2011. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner has directed the Tehsildar, Ludhiana to register complaint on the complaint made against the Record Keeper by the petitioner, for the loss of the Will. This is said to have been made on 28.07.2011. The petitioner is unable to give any information of whether a case has been registered and what is nature of action, which has been taken by the police. Instead he has approached this Court seeking for the reliefs. 2. The officer, who is competent to lodge the complaint has set the law in motion and he has advised the Tehsildar to take appropriate action on the basis of complaint against the Record Keeper, office of Sub Registrar, Ludhiana. The petitioner shall exercise restraint and will not have any relief before this Court without securing appropriate information on the nature of action that has been taken by the police on the basis of complaint. If no investigation is undertaken by the police, the petitioner will have appropriate remedy by means of a private complaint before a competent Court of criminal jurisdiction. The resort to a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is a needless waste of time. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 09, 2011 Pankaj*