IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8454 of 2008 Date of Decision : February 08, 2011. Bhagwant Singh .....Petitioner versus Improvement Trust, Amritsar and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 3rd April, 2008 (Annexure P-2) whereby his claim for execution of the sale deed in respect of SCO No.27, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar has been turned down. The petitioner claims that the above stated site was allotted to him in the year 1986 being a 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Victim and though he never executed any power of attorney in favour of anyone but the official of the Amritsar Improvement Trust have in a clandestine manner executed a sale deed in favour of Bhagwant Singh, a fictitious person other than the petitioner. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the report submitted by the Chief Vigilance Officer, Local Government, Punjab, in September, 1998 (Annexure P-14). The C.W.P.No .8454 of 2008 2 petitioner's further grievance is that the above stated enquiry report was forwarded to the State Government but the decision taken thereupon has not been conveyed to him as found out by him under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner appears to have served the respondents in this regard with a legal notice dated 21.8.2001 (Annexure P15) also. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the case at some length does not dispute the fact that the issues raised herein above regarding forging of the alleged power of attorney or execution of the sale deed in favour of a fictitious person are seriously disputed question of facts which can be effectively gone into by leading evidence. That being so, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.3 & 4 to convey the decision, if any, taken by the State Government on the report submitted by the Chief Vigilance Officer, Local Government, Punjab, in September, 1998, within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, he is relegated to the alternative remedy to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. February 08, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE