CWP No. 12672 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12672 of 2010 Date of decision August 11, 2011 Gulab Singh and another ....... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG., Haryana] for the respondents. **** 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's grievance is that he had duped by the act of the Tehsildar in making entries to appear as though that had belonged to one Pal Singh when actually the property was of Gram Panchayat. According to him, he has been put to loss and the Revenue officials are protecting the Tehsildar for a fraudulent act by him because he has high political connections. The prayer in the writ petition is for mandamus directing the respondents who are the Secretary, Home Department, Financial Commissioner, Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, SDO and Senior Superintendent of Police to take action against such culprits. Neither the Tehsildar nor the persons who had sold CWP No. 12672 of 2010 2 the property make such a false representation that he was owner of the property before him. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any alleged fraudulent acts of the Tehsildar and his vendor, his remedy ought to be elsewhere under the Criminal Procedure Code by registering a complaint within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate for taking cognizance of the offences alleged to have been perpetrated perpetuated by the persons referred to above. Incidentally, it is stated by the counsel for the State that departmental action has also been initiated against the Tehsildar and it is pending. The petitioner will have his remedy for the consequences of coming by a transaction of purchase which has put him to loss in different proceedings and not in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 11, 2011 archana