Makhan Singh And Another v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.29465 of 2019 Date of Decision: 01.08.2025 Makhan Singh and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present:- None for petitioners.

Mr. R.S. Pandher, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3.

***** LISA GILL, J.(Oral) 1.

Prayer in this writ-petition is for issuance of direction to respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat, Khanpur to stop mining from the land of petitioner as well as adjoining land.

2.

Reply on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 was filed in February, 2024. It is specifically stated therein that mining site had been surrendered by the Contractor. Surrender application has also been attached along-with the reply as Annexure R-7 and as per report dated 11.05.2018 (Annexure R-5) of the Mining Officer, no illegal mining was being carried out in or in the vicinity of khasra numbers in question and that site in question has been surrendered. It is reiterated that no illegal mining is being carried out at the site in question.

NEETU RANI 2025.08.04 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

CWP No.29465 of 2019 -23.

Reply on behalf of respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat has also been filed. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 reiterates that no mining, leave alone illegal mining is being carried out in the area in question. Gram Panchayat, in any case, had not leased out the land in question for mining. 4.

None had appeared on behalf of petitioners on the last date of hearing. Order dated 22.07.2025 reads as under:- "

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that no cause of action survives to the petitioners as the auction vide which land in question was allocated for mining by the Department, stands cancelled.

None appears on behalf of the petitioners.

In the interest of justice, adjourned to 01.08.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner be notified of the date fixed."

5.

Today again, there is no representation on behalf of petitioners despite learned counsel for petitioners being notified of the date fixed. 6.

In view of specific stand of the respondents, which has not been controverted, we do not find any justification for continuance of proceedings in present writ-petition.

7.

Writ-petition is, accordingly, disposed of as infructuous. (LISA GILL) JUDGE 01.08.2025 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) neetu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No NEETU RANI 2025.08.04 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD