Naresh Kumari vs State And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 104 Del

JUDGMENT

Khan, J.

1. Petitioner claims that she was allotted and put in possession of land measuring 27 bighas or so comprising various khasra numbers at Village Kapashere pursuant to some consolidation Officer where after mutation was attested in her name by the Revenue Authority. She also obtained a NOC for transfer of a part of this land by order dated 12.12.1995. But strangely Consolidation Officer recalled his own order dated 1.12.1995 on 18.7.1996 about which she came to know on 24.1.1997. She thereafter challenged it before Financial Commissioner who set aside this order on 25.3.1997. But Revenue authorities retaliated by filing a revision petition against her allotment order dated 1.12.1995 which was stayed by the Financial Commissioner. She challenged this in CW. 3292/92 which was pending before this court and in which she obtained a stay order restraining official respondents from dispossessing her on 14.8.1997 which was later extended on 10.9.1997.

2. Petitioner alleges that on 10.9.1997 itself some police officials and labourers accompanying respondents 4 to 9 broke open the lock of the premises and criminally trespassed into it removing tractor, trolley, water tank, generator, boring machine, tempo and other agricultural implements in defiance of the interim restraint order of this court dated 14.8.97. They also took the labourers engaged by her into custody and demolished structures and committed intimidation, theft and mischief, etc. She has placed some photographs on record to support all this and has also pointed out that she had filed CCP 307/97 in this regard which was also pending.

3. Petitioner's grievance is that she had written to SHO, P.S. Najafgarh and also to Police Commissioner informing them of the incident and for registration of a case against respondents 4 to 9 but no action was taken by them in the matter. She now prays that respondents 1 to 3 be directed to register a case against these respondents and to bring them to book under law.

4. Respondent No. 3, in his reply has admitted to have received a report from petitioner but has submitted that ownership and possession of the land in question was in dispute and subject matter of some arbitration proceedings and, therefore, no action was liable to be taken as petitioner had failed to furnish any proof of her possession on the land. Respondents 4 to 6 and 9 have also filed their reply disputing that petitioner had even come to hold the possession of land which had always remained with respondent No. 4 after it was handed over to him by Consolidation Officer. So much so that Lt. Governor had also laid foundation stone on this on 17.1.1997 for construction of mini secretariat. Respondent No. 8 has admitted that he was approached by respondents 4 and 5 for police help for removal of encroachment on this land on 9.9.1997 and later Lt.Governor had laid foundation stone of the District Officers there on 17.1.97. It was on 21.1.1997 that one Ajmer Singh, JE, PWD had complained to concerned police regarding destruction and theft of this foundation stone and trespass on the land pursuant whereto FIR 56/97 under Sections 379/447/427 IPC was registered at P.S. Najafgarh and petitioner's son Ateesh Bhardwaj arrested. The investigation in this FIR could not proceed after petitioner filed Civil Writ Petitioner in this court. He has also denied that petitioner was ever in possession of this land or that any trespass or theft was committed on it by R4-9 as alleged by her.

5. It is in this scenario that petitioner wants us to direct respondents 1 to 3 to register a case of alleged trespass, theft and mischief against respondents 4 to 9. It becomes difficult for us to do so in the facts and circumstances of the case when the petitioner's claim of possession and title over the land is in dispute and when it is claimed to belong to State by the other side and there is a counter allegation of petitioner having tried to encroach upon it several times. Moreover, it is admitted by both sides that petitioner's CWP No. 3292/92 and CCP No. 307/97 were pending on the subject matter and in which she had all the opportunity to vindicate her claim and seek punishment of R4-9. She had other remedies available too which she could avail of if so advised. Therefore, for all this, we don't find any good ground to direct R1-3 to register a case against other Respondents and dismiss this petitioner accordingly. However, should respondents 1 & 2 be seized of petitioner's complaint or representation in this regard, they shall examine it and pass appropriate orders thereon within three months from receipt of this order.