Civil Writ Petition No. 7398 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.7398 of 2008 Date of decision: 4.11.2008 M/s Vinod Brothers, through Vinod Kumar Sood, Proprietor. .....Petitioner. Versus Chandigarh Administration & others ....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. Present: Mr.Anuj Raura, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.K.K.Gupta,Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing an independent agency like Central Bureau of Investigation to hold an independent enquiry into the grave and serious irregularities and illegalities committed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and for further direction to pay damages for deliberate and wilful disobedience of the judgment and decree dated 2.11.2002 passed by Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Chandigarh, whereby the rented accommodation in respect of which permanent injunction had been granted in favour of the petitioner has been demolished. The petitioner is residing in a room rented out to him by respondent No.5. He approached the Civil Court by way of filing a civil suit for permanent injunction against respondent Nos. 2 and 5 to protect the possession of the premises. The suit of the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No. 7398 of 2008 [2] was decreed in the following terms: “ .... In view of foregoing discussion, an ex parte decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the disputed premises and not to demolish one room and boundary wall measuring covered area of 200 sq. yards, as detailed in the head note of the plaint, forcibly or illegally except in due course of law. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are, however, free to proceed against the plaintiff in accordance with law. There is no order as to costs....” The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that respondent No.5, in collusion with official respondents, is harassing him and are trying to demolish the rented accommodation and no action is being taken against the said persons. Written statement on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 has been filed, which is on record. Mr.K.K.Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4, has raised a preliminary objection that petitioner has encroached upon the government's land in an unauthorized manner and has constructed a room and boundary wall over the said land. In this regard, many complaints were made by the aggrieved persons of the locality and the Enforcement Wing of Chandigarh Administration also lodged a complaint with the police station vide DDR No.15 dated 21.8.2007 but the petitioner has not removed the illegal encroachment made over the government's land. It has also been argued by Mr.Gupta that the civil Court, Civil Writ Petition No. 7398 of 2008 [3] Chandigargh, by an ex parte judgment and decree dated 2.11.2002, has only directed defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the said suit not to dispossess the plaintiff, except in due course of law and liberty was also granted to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to proceed against the plaintiff in accordance with law. The petitioner was asked to remove the encroachment but the same has not been removed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, Civil Procedure Code, for taking action against the officials of the Estate Office who removed his encroachments upon the Government land. The competent authority has already filed the reply to the said application but the petitioner is prolonging the matter on one pretext or the other and the matter is still pending before the civil Court. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the writ records. Admittedly, the matter is still pending before the civil Court and petitioner has no cause of action to file the present writ petition. Even otherwise also, we have no sympathy for the encroachers who have encroached upon the government's land. The writ petition is merely an abuse of the process of the Court and has been filed without any cause of action. No relief can be granted under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. (UMA NATH SINGH) (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE JUDGE 4.11. 2008. raghav