KRISHNA ASHRAY SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. This writ petition is directed against order dated 7-12-2004 passed by Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh on the application of respondent No. 7 dated 7-12-2004. Through the said order Commissioner has directed that opposite party i. e. petitioner of the instant writ petition shall be restrained from making unauthorized construction without demarcation.

(2.) GULAB Chand and Gauri Shanker Lal who are the son and father and arrayed as respondents No. 6 and 7 in the writ petition have filed counter-affidavit. They are the only contesting respondents. Sri Ajay Srivastava, learned Counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Murli Dhar, learned senior Counsel of respondents No. 6 and 7 have been heard. The dispute in between petitioner and respondents No. 6 and 7 relates to their bhumidhari lands which are adjacent to each other. GULAB Chand, Respondent No. 6 and son of respondent No. 7 filed a civil suit before Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Mohammdabad, District Azamgarh being O. S. No. 731 of 2004 on 27-11-2004. In the said suit plaintiff could not obtain temporary injunction. The said suit is still pending. Thereafter respondent No. 7 filed an application before Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Application was filed on 7-12-2004. In the said application wild charges of corruption and acceptance of bribe were made against S. D. M. , Sagrhi. In the said application it was mentioned that son of the applicant had earlier filed an application on 16-11-2004 to the effect that the land should be demarcated and unauthorized occupation on Gaon Sabha land should be stopped, however, S. D. M. , Sagrhi after accepting bribe from petitioner, permitted the petitioner to raise construction over Gaon Sabha land. In the next paragraph it was mentioned that S. D. M. permitted the petitioner to raise construction over the land of the applicant i. e. Gauri Shanker Lal. It was also mentioned in the said application that the son of the applicant had filed suit before the Court which was pending. The prayer was that action should be taken against S. D. M. for accepting bribe from the petitioner, unauthorized occupation from Gaon Sabha land should be removed and after holding enquiry against the S. D. M. suitable action should be taken against him so that other officers could be warned. In the last sentence it was prayed that construction being raised by the petitioner after demolishing wall of respondent No. 7 should be stopped.

(3.) COMMISSIONER does not exercise any original jurisdiction. He is only appellate or revisional authority. In any case if COMMISSIONER was prima facie satisfied with the allegation contained in the application dated 7-12-2004 then he should have immediately initiated proceedings against the S. D. M. against whom charges were leveled. Respondents No. 6 and 7 are utterly abusing the process of Court. First they filed the suit and when they failed to obtain any injunction order in the suit they filed an application before COMMISSIONER. The COMMISSIONER on the said application passed the impugned order on the same day to the effect that without demarcation opposite party of the said application i. e. the petitioner should be restrained from making illegal construction and compliance report should be sent to the COMMISSIONER. As respondent No. 7 is an aged person, hence Court is refraining from taking any action against respondent No. 7. The COMMISSIONER is directed to be extra careful in future. His order can be described only as a misadventure which shall be avoided in future at every cost.