IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10088/2007. Badri Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. Date of Order:- 21/1/2008. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Shri Satish Pachori for the petitioner. **** The present writ petition has been filed with the following relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to call for the entire record and respondents be directed to give possession of the land to the petitioner and to remove the unauthorized encroacher from the land of the petitioner as per the directions of learned court below; ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to provide protection to the petitioner by the State to secure the life and property. iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to provide appropriate compensation to the petitioner for proper treatment and health care till his fitness. iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent No.1 be directed to get examine the conduct of respondent No.3 for filing the charge-sheet in hot hasty manner.” Perusal of the relief prayed for shows that petitioner is mainly praying for protection against the unauthorized encroachment in regard to the possession and at the same time seeking protection of 2 SBCWP NO.10088/2007. his life. The last prayer is in regard to grant of compensation. So far as relief for protection of his civil rights of property are concerned, it cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction more so petition has been filed to seek execution of order passed by Tehsildar Bhilwara and so far as the protection of life is concerned, petitioner has already submitted FIR and if petitioner still have grievance then, he should have approached the court at Jahajpur and lastly to claim compensation again the petitioner can approach the civil court but the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for seeking compensation. In view of above, none of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner can be claimed by way of maintaining a writ petition and otherwise the cause of action in this matter does not exist in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. After dictation of judgment, learned counsel for petitioner prayed that atleast a liberty may be given to the petitioner to approach to the Collector and Police. It goes without saying that such liberty is always there. The writ petition is dismissed only on the ground that the same is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that it has not take away liberty of the petitioner if exists otherwise. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. anil