CWP No. 22858 of 2011 -1- In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 22858 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.12.2011 Ajit Singh & others ....... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & others ........ Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina **** Present: Mr. A.S. Syan, Advocate for the petitioners. **** 1. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? M.M. Kumar, J. In the instant petition the petitioners pray for issuing directions to the respondents to acquire the land owned by the petitioners under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and pay the compensation for the same. A further prayer has been made to remove the culvert (Pully) from the land of the petitioners and also to pay compensation to them for the damages caused to their crops and houses due to the illegal construction of the culvert (Pully). Along with the writ petition a copy of the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the petitioners against the respondents has been attached. The prayer made in the suit for mandatory injunction is reproduced here under :- “It is, therefore prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs may kindly be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants, their servants, agents, and attornies to remove the pooly constructed in Khasra no. CWP No. 22858 of 2011 -2- 34//8(6-5) situated in village Amampura alias Khalifewala and also restraining the defendants from interfering in any way in the land owned and possessed by the plaintiffs bearing Khewat / Khatoni No. 20/33, Khasra no. 34//8 (6-5), 9(3-4), 12/1 (2-13), 13/1 (2-7) totaling 14 kanals 9 marlas situated in village Amampura @ Khalifewala Tehsil and Distt. Patiala also restraining them from flowing the water of the pond of their houses and rainy water to the house of the plaintiffs forcibly and illegally be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants with costs. Any other relief to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit be also granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.” It is evident from the bare perusal of the prayer made in the suit that the petitioners have claimed similar relief in the suit and if they succeed in one of the litigation the other one would become infructuous. Moreover, once the petitioners have chosen the course of approaching the Civil Court then any connected cause of action should be included in the suit itself and the remedy of filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be available. The argument that in the suit no relief for damages and compensation has been prayed for cannot be accepted because there is no bar for the petitioners praying for such a relief before the Civil Court by filing a suitable application for amendment of the prayer clause. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the petition particularly when the suit is pending on the same cause of action. Dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE December 09, 2011 (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) ‘sp’ JUDGE