R.S.A No. 40 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 40 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : September 22, 2009 Ramesh, ...... Appellant (s) v. State of Haryana and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Lamba, AAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to construct a bridge over the Barsola feeder on the ground that by the construction of the said feeder, his land has been bifurcated and he had no path to go to his field. The lower appellate Court has found as a fact that there was no path originally sanctioned on that portion by the Consolidation Department R.S.A No. 40 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: and further there were two bridges on the feeder at a distance of some Killas which could be accessed by the appellant to reach to his field. The following questions of law have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the appellant has a right for path for his field, which has been bifurcated due to construction of Barsola Feeder ? ii) Whether the respondents are bound to construct the Bridge on the Barsola Feeder or to provide path to the appellant for approaching to his field ? iii) Whether grave and manifest injustice has been done to the appellant ?” In view of the findings regarding lack of sanctioned path and the existence of two bridges, it has to be held that the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence as would render the same perverse. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 22, 2009. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 40 of 2008 (O&M) ::3::