Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1395 (MP)

Laxmi Bai v. State of M. P.

2011-12-12

SUJOY PAUL

body2011
ORDER Sujoy Paul, J. 1. The petitioner prayed for following relief in the petition:- (I) That, the instant petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order of Annexure-P/1 may kindly be quashed. (II) That, the respondents No. 1 to 7 & 9 & 10 may kindly be directed to not interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land described in para-3 of this petition. (III) That, the respondent No. 9 & 10 may further be directed to not making any harassment (mentally & physically) against the petitioner and her family members. (IV) That, the respondent No. 9 & 10 may kindly be directed to provide proper protection to the petitioner and her family members against respondent No. 3 to 7. (V) That, the other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit may be granted including cost be ordered. 2. Leaned senior counsel submits that Annexure-P/1 is liable to be quashed and set aside. He submits that the respondents are unnecessarily creating hindrance in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land described in Para 3 of the petition. Accordingly, petitioner has prayed for a direction not to harass the petitioner and his family members. To elaborate, Shri Jain senior counsel submits that the order dated 06/04/2011 was issued by Sub-Divisional Officer. Against that order, an appeal is preferred and from the Court of Collector an interim order Annexure-P/8 is passed. Despite operation of this impugned order, the private respondents herein are creating hindrance and harassing the petitioners. 3. Per Contra, learned Government Advocate Smt. Sangeeta Pachouri submits that the order Annexure-P/1 is revisable under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, petitioner has alternative, efficacious remedy available under the law. 4. Shri Rajmani Bansal, learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 to 7 adopted the same arguments and submits that respondents No. 5 to 7 cannot be blamed for order Annexure-P/1. The petitioner has erroneously alleged against his clients, which is not tenable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. This is disputed that impugned order Annexure-P/1 is revisable under Section of Cr.P.C. Since, there is an alternative, efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. The relief No. 7(I) is not granted because of availability of alternative remedy. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. This is disputed that impugned order Annexure-P/1 is revisable under Section of Cr.P.C. Since, there is an alternative, efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. The relief No. 7(I) is not granted because of availability of alternative remedy. The petitioner may file a revision along with appropriate interim application within ten days from today before the Court of competent jurisdiction. If such a revision and interim application is filed, the competent Court shall hear the matter as expeditiously as possible. Till the decision of petitioner's application for interim relief, the interim protection granted by this Court on 19/10/2011 shall continue. So far relief No. 7 (II to V) are concerned, no writ can be issued against the private parties. If petitioner has a valid grievance against private respondents, he may apprise the respondent No. 10, if he is subjected to any kind of threat or pressure. This Court has no doubt if such a application is preferred by the petitioner, the said authority shall deal with it in accordance with law. Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this petition. 7. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of.