Yogesh Jain & ORS v. State Of Haryana & ORS

LPA No.1093 of 2016 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. Nos.2938-39 of 2016 in LPA No.1093 of 2016 (O&M) in CWP No.17390 of 2015 Date of Decision.13.07.2018 Yogesh Jain and others ...Appellants Vs The State of Haryana and others ..Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate for the non-applicant-appellants.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Manoj Dhankhar, AAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 5.

Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the applicant-respondent No.6.

-.- RAJESH BINDAL J.

The order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge has been impugned by filing present intra-court appeal. The relief sought in the writ petition filed by respondent No.6-writ petitioner was that a direction be issued to the official respondents to demarcate the land of the writ petitioner for which application had been made. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal to do the needful in accordance with law.

The present appeal was admitted on 24.06.2016 and operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge was stayed. PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.07.17 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA No.1093 of 2016 (O&M) -2During the pendency of the present appeal on 09.08.2017, interim order already passed at the time of admission of the appeal was modified and official respondents were directed to carry out the demarcation in terms of directions issued by the learned Single Judge. The report has been produced on record.

As the only prayer made by the writ petitioner was for demarcation of his land and the needful has been done, we do not find anything survives in the present litigation.

The apprehension of the appellants that the demarcation report as submitted before this Court may be treated as final document is totally misplaced as we have not opined on the correctness thereof. Needless to state that it is for the parties to avail their appropriate remedy in accordance with law, if any one is aggrieved by the demarcation report.

The appeal stands disposed of.

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE July 13, 2018 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.07.17 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document