"N 3^( HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE^PF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No.2922 of 2003 PETITIONER: Saiit Khushrain Jaiswal, S/o Hiralal, Aged about 52 years, R/o Vm^e: Kaitha, P.S. Jaijaipiir, Tehsil: Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir (C.G.) Versus RESPQNDENTS: 2. 3. State of Chhatdsgarh, Through: The Secretaiy, Revenue Departnient, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Tehsildar, Jaijaipiir, Distt. Jaiygir (C.G.) Ofi&cer-ia-charge of Police Station: Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir (C.G.) Sarpaach, ViUage Paachayat: Kaifh.a, Tehsil: Jaijaipur, Distt. Jaajgir (C.G.) POST FOR ORDERS ON 23ND SEPTEMBER, 2003 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge 20.09.2003 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR INNIII-NII*' Writ Petition No.2922 of 2003 PETITIONER: Saat Khushrani Jaiswal, S/o Hiralal, Aged about 52 years, R/o Vmage: Kaitha, P.S, Jaijaipur, Tehsil: Jaijaipur, Distt. Jaiygir (C.G.) RESPONDENTS: Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretaiy, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur(C.G.) The TehsUdar, Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir (C.G.) Officer-in-charge of Police Station: Jaijaipur, Distt. Jaajgir (C.G.) Sarpaach, Vfflage Paachayat: Kaifha, Tehsil: Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir (C.G.) Present: - Mr, Shailesh Ahuja, Advocate: Mr. Praveen Das, Paael Lawyer: For fhe petitioner For fhe State/respondents Before: Hon>ble Shri Justice L.C. Bhadoo ORDBR (Passed ong^U-^. September, 2003) 1. The petitioner has preferred fhis writ petition iinder Article 226/227 of fhe Constitution of India, for directing respondent No.3 to take appropriate legal action agauist respondent No.4 aad fhey be restmiaed from impUcating fhe petitioner m a false and Mvolous case, 2. The case of fhe petitioner is fhat he is resident ofViUage: Kaifha and he is ia possession of Goveraiiient laad bearing Khasra No.2/1 Rakba 2,30 decmxal siace last 15 years and fhe petitioner has constnicted a hut aad also planted and developed fi-uit trees aad had also grown a vegetable garden on fhis laad. He had also dug a well on fhe laad aad he is drawiag water frora that weU for fhe ^ ?? purpose of ird^ation of trces and vegetable garden. However, respondent No.4 became aagiy offtiis aiid got constructed a road on fhis laad and started creatmg obstractions ia fhe peaceful enjoyinent of fhe land ia question by ftie petitioner. Accordiagly, fhe petitioner raade a coiaplamt to fhe Chief Miaister aad fhe viUagers also raade a coiaplauit to fhe Chief Miaister aad that was sent to fhe Collector. The petitioner has also made a complaint to flie Officer-ui-Charge PoUce Station: Jaijaipur, ia which he has stated that respondent No,4 aad ofhers have outraged fhe inodesty his wife Sait. Phool Bai aad fhey have disinaafled his hut, abused aad misbehaved wifh Tiim. The report was lodged on 31st May, 2001, but the respondents are not takiag aay action. Respondent No.4 is continuously harassiag fhe petitioner. The petitioner subinitted a representation to fhe Inspector Gteneral of PoUce, BUaspur, Thereafler, respondent No.4 started fhreateniag fhe petitioner because fhe petitioner has made the complamt agamst him aad he is terrorizuig ftie petitioner, The petitioner also inade a coinplaiat to the Huinaa Rights Coiainission, Raipur. 3. I have heard fhe learaed cozinsel for fhe parties. ^ss^^^K ^ 4. The petitioner has not been able to niake out a case before fhis Court to exercise fhe extraordinary jurisdiction ia fhe raatter. It cannot be said fhat fhere is no alteraative aad ef&cacious remiedy > available wifh the petitioner. If fhe PoUce is not actmg upon fhe coinplaint filed by fhe petitioner, fhen he is wifhia his nght to approach fhe concemed cnminal Court aad file a complaint under the Crimmal Procedure Code. Therefore, it cannot be said that fhe petitioner has no aay equally efiicacious remedy wifh. hiai to pursue his grievaaces. In the writ jurisdiction, such direction as prayed by fhe petitioner caanot be graated, because fhe atlegations leveled by the petitioner require fhorough mvestigation aad enquiiy by fhe PoUte about their veracity or ofhLenvise. If fhe PoUce is not mstitating aay case, fhen the petitioner caa file a complamt before fhe coinpetent Court. 5. In view of fhe above,' fhe writ petition is Mable to be disiaissed aad the saine is disndssed. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge