Prakash Mistry v. The Deputy Commissioner And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ...

WPA/294/2021 Prakash Mistry ... Petitioner Vs.

The Deputy Commissioner and others ... Respondents Mr. Ananda Halder ... for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the Administration Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the pvt. respondent September 20, 2022 [AKB] Item No.4 The petitioner who admits to have himself encroached upon a piece of government revenue land at Ram Nagar Village in Shaheed Dweep alleges that the private respondent (respondent No. 5) who has also allegedly encroached upon an adjacent plot of government revenue land is disturbing the possession of the petitioner. The private respondent is a employee of the Electricity Department. The petitioner has made a complaint to several authorities including the Superintending Engineer Department of Electricity, Vidyut Bhawan, Phoenix Bay, Port Blair for taking disciplinary measures against the said respondent No.5.

The petitioner further alleges that despite such complaint being made on 1st February, 2021 and has been received by all the addressee, no steps has yet been taken against the respondent No.5.

The question which arises on the basis of the petitioner's complaint is the infringement of petitioner's right in respect of possession of his admittedly encroached land. This alleged infringement cannot be a ground for maintaining a complaint against the respondent No.5 with his employer for taking disciplinary measures against the said respondent No.5. The remedy, if any open to the petitioner is by approaching a proper forum to decide upon

the petitioner's possessory right, if any in respect of land which the petitioner says has been infringed by the respondent no.5. The petitioner on the basis of such allegations against the respondent no.5 cannot invite the respondents no. 1 to 4 to consider his complaint or take disciplinary action against the respondent no.5. None of the respondents no. 1 to 4 are competent to decide on the alleged infringement of the petitioner's possessory right said to have been made by the respondent no. 5. No fruitful purpose will be served directing the respondent no. 1 to 4 to consider the petitioner's complaint.

The writ petition therefore, is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)