HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W. P. jCr I No.5127 [2008 PETITIONER Jagdamba Prasad Agrawal, S/o Shri Kishan Lal Agrawal, ‘aged about 54 years, R/o Pendra, P.S. Pedra, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). Vs. RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector, District Bilaspur (C.G). 2. Sub—Divisional V Magistrate, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (CG). Sub—Divisional Officer, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G). 4. Superintendent of Police, Distt. Bilaspur (0G). 5. Station lncharge, P.S.Pendra, District Bilaspur (C.G). 6. Tahasildar Pendra District Bilaspur C.G. 7. Harbans Singh Arora, aged about 50 years 8. Panja Singh, aged about years 9. Pyari Bai, aged about 4O years, Wo Panja Singh, 10. Awatar Singh, s/o Panja Singh, aged about 30 years, Munna, s/ o Panja Singh, aged about 3O years Respondents 7 to 11, all residents of Gaurella, P.S. Gaurella, Distt. Bilaspur (0G). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Agpearance: Mr. Y. Chaturvedi, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondents 1 to 6, on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (19.03.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, Heard on admission. 45 / 2 etitionr, Jagdamba Prasa Agrawal, has filed this writ Pe d etition for the following relies) : p f( (10) RELIEFIS) SOUGHT : 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in respect of the petitioner’s case. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly. be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari thereby directing resondents 1 to 6 to restore the possession of the suit property to the petitioer. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction to the responnts to adequately compensate the petitioner for the wrongful loss' caused to the petitioner by their illegal and arbitrary act. 10.4 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly e pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction to the reondent no.1 and respondent nor4 to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against the erring authities on the basis of Annexure P/ 3. 10.5 Any other relief(s) which the Hon’ble Court deems f nd proper in the-facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded: 10.6 Cost of the petition may also be given. Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, learned cnsel for the petitioner ou submits that the etitioner entere into an agreement to purchase. p d e disputed premises on 0.1.1998 an thereafter in a proceeding th 8 d u/s 145 of te Code of Criminal Procedure, the disputed premises h was also given to the petitioner on Suprudnama on 28.9.1998. He‘ submits that the proceedings u/s 145’(Criminal Case No.78/ 1996) before the Sub—Divisional Magistrate terminated on 03.10.2007 and Y’'lr w». 7? W. P (CL) No.5127 of2008 p n de b sp or it a 3 . W. P (CL) No.5127 0f2008 ‘ the pétition was disposed of by declaring the possession of the applicant/party no.1 Harbans Singh Arora. The Executing Magistrate has also held that for the dispute in relation to ownership of the premises, the parties may resort to remedy of the civil suit. This order was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.32/2007 before the Addlr Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur. The said criminal revision was also dismissed Vide order dated 26th December, 2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Misc. Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court but the said petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court. He further submits that there after a review petition has been filed by the petitioner which is still pending for consideration. lt also transpired during the course of hearing that the petitioner herein namely Jagdamba Prasad Agrawal has already filed a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge, Class~IL Pendra Road, in the year 2000 and the said suit is pending for adjudication. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner got dispossessed during the pendency of these proceedings, therefore, he has filed this writ petition seeking relief of restoration of possession as also compensation. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the civil suit has already been filed by the petitioner, this writ petition would not be maintainable. This is more so because according to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the dispossession and right to retain the possession on the basis of agreement etc, would require leading of evidence which course would not be available in a writ petition filed u/s 226 of the Constitution of India. V kk Rd/x ; e. “”E‘W 4 W.P. (Cr). No.5127/2018 For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to admit this petition for hea‘ring‘ The petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. However, the petitioner wonld be at liberty to seek relief(s) claimed in the petition, in the civil suit, which is already pending before the competent civil court as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. No orders as to costs. 5 Sdl‘ . fslmil Kumar Sinha V Judge