Jaiwant Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

U.C. Maheshwari, Judge

Heard on the question of admission.The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the authorities of respondent nos. 2 to 5 not to permit the respondent no. 6 to raise further construction of the school building in front of his allotted mine. In alternate direction against respondent no. 6 is sought not to make any construction of the school building on the disputed place in front of his mine. Besides this prayer for appropriate direction to respondent no. 3 to decide the pending revenue case bearing no. unregistered-B/125/1.12 on some earlier date is also made.

In the course of arguments petitioner has made his argument only for issuing appropriate direction to Tahsildar to decide the aforesaid revenue case in which order Annexure P-5 has been passed on 14.5.2012 on some early date.

After perusing the petition as well as papers available on record, I have found that the aforesaid revenue case was registered at the instant of some business firm against one Shyam Singh who is a Sarpanch of such village. It also appears from the order sheet of such case, Annexure P-5 that the same has been filed to stop the construction of the school stating that same is being carried out by the Sarpanch in the prohibited area of mining.

I am of the considered view that if any construction is carried out by any local authority under its authority, then the same could be stayed after holding the requisite proceeding of the case in accordance with law and not prior to that. It is also apparent from the Annexure P-5 that the notices of such revenue case has been issued to the Sarpanch in a very quick manner even without registering the case, the reasons best known to parties interested and the Tahsildar. It is apparent that in such revenue case the present petitioner is not a party has come to this court with a prayer for appropriate direction of early disposal of such case.

When the petitioner is not related in any manner with the impugned revenue case, then he is not having any authority to get any direction from this court for early disposal of the same.

Besides the aforesaid, I am not apprised by any legal position by the petitioner''s counsel showing that to stop the alleged construction of the school by Panchyat, then under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the extraordinary jurisdiction could be invoked. On the contrary, it appears that various questions relating to law and facts are involved in the matter which could not be adjudicated unless the evidence is recorded by the competent authority, forum or the court. So in such premises also the writ petition could not be entertained by this Court. In view of the aforesaid, I have not found any merits in the petition for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court enumerated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently this petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order or any observation made in it shall not come in the way of the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of his dispute or to file appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum or to appropriate court permissible under the law.