Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47616-DB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl. No.16) Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. 35400- of 2024 Petitioner :- Surendra Kaur Respondent :- State Of Up And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishn Kumar,Praveen Shrivastav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kabeer Tiwari Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. The instant petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents no.2 and 3 to hold an inquiry through an independent agency, which is beyond influence of District Magistrate, Jhansi and SSP, Jhansi on basis of the complaint made by the petitioner (Annexures 1 and 2) to the Commissioner, Jhansi Mandal, Jhansi and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jhansi Region, Jhansi. 2. According to the case setup in the writ petition, the husband of the petitioner was tenant in a shop since 20.01.1980 on behalf of Shobit Agarwal, respondent no.7 herein. It is alleged that he got a building plan approved by foul means. The said building had no entrance/exit. After getting the building plan approved, he demolished the shop of the petitioner for facilitating access to the building. The petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and in the said proceedings order was passed for registering First Information Report. It is further stated that thereafter the Investigating Officer within a week submitted a Final Report. The petitioner filed a protest petition. The same was treated as a complaint case vide order dated 08.12.2023. The petitioner aggrieved thereby filed a revision but the same was rejected. The petitioner thereafter admits to have filed a petition under Article 227 bearing number 6629 of 2024, in relation to the said criminal proceedings but the outcome of the same has not been disclosed in the writ petition. It is alleged that the private respondents with the aid of District Administration has fabricated various documents, false reports and that inquiry should be held. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi submits that the allegations made in the writ petition are absolutely incorrect. In fact, a compounding plan was submitted by respondent no. 7 and the same was sanctioned subject to the condition that non-compoundable part of the building would be demolished. The non-compoundable part included certain shops illegally constructed by respondent no.7 and one of which was in occupation of the petitioner as tenant. There were in all six shops out of which two were in possession of respondent no.7. The Development Authority demolished the two shops in possession of respondent no. 7, in view of the conditions imposed while sanctioning the compounding plan. He submits that the remaining shops as per the affidavit given by the respondent no. 7 appear to have been demolished by him. It is further submitted that the dispute, if any, is between the petitioner and respondent no. 7 and in garb of seeking an order of inquiry, the petitioner is trying to settle scores with the private respondent. It is further submitted that the F.I.R lodged by the petitioner has already resulted in submission of a closure report. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. Indisputably, the husband of the petitioner and now the petitioner was occupying the shop as tenant on behalf of respondent no.7. The petitioner had already lodged First Information Report as is the case setup in the writ petition. After investigation, a final report was submitted. The objection filed by the petitioner was treated as a protest petition. The petitioner aggrieved thereby filed petition under Article 227 bearing no. 6629 of 2024. The said petition was got withdrawn as is evident from order dated 17.01.2025, placed before us by counsel for the Development Authority. 5. The petitioner having already initiated criminal proceedings against respondent no. 7, we find no good reason to entertain the instant petition or issue any direction for holding a panel inquiry. Moreover, we find no material on record to indicate that there was any collusion between the Development Authority and respondent no.7 in demolishing the shop, which was in occupation of the petitioner or her predecessor. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad