ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

A. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the impugned orders dated 23.02.2024 (AnnexureP/12) passed by the respondent No. 2 passed in case No.jktLo iz-Ø- 0001@ch&121@2023&24 in the interest of justice.

B. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct to the Collector Chhatarpur to reconsider the representation and further be take action against the respondents and concerned authorities according with the law in the interest of justice, in the interest of justice.

C. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may also be granted.

2. It is the case of petitioner that khasra No.1808/8/1/1/5/1/1/1 area 0.9493 hectares is recorded in the name of Mata Prasad S/o Govind Prasad Bajpayee having share to the extent of 0.351 hectares, Ghanshyam S/o Govinddas Bajpayee having 0.281 hectares and Damodar S/o Govinddas Bajpayee having 0.396 hectares and the said land is in possession of aforesaid persons. Petitioner made a complaint that Mata Prasad, Ghanshyam and Damodar are involved in illegal plotting. Petitioner also filed a Civil Suit No.05A/2021 and his application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. was rejected on 11.11.2021. Thereafter, he made a complaint against Mata Prasad, Ghanshyam and Damodar about illegal plotting. The High Court had directed the respondent to decide the complaint made by petitioner. Therefore, by the impugned order the complaint made by petitioner has been rejected with a finding that respondents Nos.5 to 11 have sold certain pieces of land to meet their personal expenses. The plots were sold prior to 2020 and even Municipal Council has constructed CC road, drains as well as has made arrangements for electricity.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The Additional Collector, Chhatarpur by impugned order dated 23.02.2024 passed in Revenue Case No.0001/B-121/2023-24 has considered the order passed by Trial Court on 11.11.2021 in Civil Suit No.5A/2021 by which application filed by petitioner for grant of temporary injunction was rejected. Similarly the order rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction was challenged by petitioner by filing MCA No.1/22 which too has been dismissed by order dated 11.04.2023.

5. For the reasons best known to petitioner he has not filed copies of orders passed by Trial Court as well as Appellate Court. Once petitioner has already lost his application for grant of temporary injunction from the Civil Court then it was obligatory on the part of petitioner to place copies of those orders to show that question raised by petitioner in the present petition was not the subject matter of dispute.

6. However, as petitioner has not placed both the orders on record, therefore, this Court is not aware as to whether objections raised by petitioner were dealt with by Trial Court or not? Non-filing of said orders clearly indicate that objections raised by petitioner were dealt with by Trial Court and if that is so, then present petition is not maintainable.

7. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that petitioner has already lost his application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. as well as appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) C.P.C., no jurisdictional error was committed by Additional Collector, Chhatarpur by dismissing the complaint.

8. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed . (G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE vc