AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks following directions.
7.1 Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to produce entire records of the case, relating to the lease granted to the petitioner Samiti in Bandhwa Talab, Torwa, Bilaspur.
2 That, the Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature mandamus and direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. Six lacs for the period of 2007 and 2008.
3 That, the Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 to take action against those persons who are responsible for the illegal act and because of whom the Members of the Petitioner Samiti are suffering and are hand to mouth.
4 That, the Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to hand over the possession of the Pond in its original condition as prior to 24.01.2007, so as to the Members of the Petitioner Samiti can survive themselves in future by way of Pisciculture.
5 Any other relief, which this Hon''ble Court deems fit and proper, be passed in favour of the petitioner.
6 Cost of the petition.
The facts in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner society is a registered society engaged in the activities of Pisciculture. The petitioner society was granted lease which was executed on 27.09.2001 for a period of seven years from 09.07.2001 to 30.06.2008. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner society, during this period the respondent No. 2 has caused damage to the pond by breaking, thus, the petitioner-society is entitled to compensation for damages as stated above. Further, action may be taken against the respondents for having committed crime of breaking the boundary wall of the Pond.
Be that as it may, the disputes raised in this petition cannot be decided by this court for grant of any compensation. First and foremost requirement is to find out whether there was any damage for which compensation may be granted, the same cannot be done by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Secondly, if some criminal act has been allegedly committed by respondents, for that petitioner society ought to have approached the police authorities or any other competent authority. Even otherwise, the period of lease has come to an end on 30.06.2008. Thus, this petition is not maintainable on account of dispute facts and on the alleged averment made in the petition. No relief can be granted in writ jurisdiction.
In view of the foregoing, this petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, LA. No. 1 also dismissed.