IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.18745 of 2009 Date of decision: 1.9.2010 Santokh Singh Dhillon. -----Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. Surinder Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate for respondent No.4. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks a direction requiring the State of Punjab, Municipal Commissioner, Jalandhar and Improvement Trust, Jalandhar to demolish the encroachment of public road by respondent No.4-Guriqbal Singh. 2. Case of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 purchased a plot under a Development Scheme of 50 Acres Defence Colony on Cantt. Road, Jalandhar and encroached CWP No.18745 of 2009 upon 36 feet wide main road abutting the north side of his plot No.18, by constructing a gate across the public road. The petitioner pointed out the encroachment by way of representation, Annexure P-5, to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, but no decision was taken by the Municipal Corporation. 3. In response to notice issued by this Court, reply has been filed by the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, respondent No.2, stating that notice under Sections 243/246 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 was issued to respondent No.4, requiring him to remove the unauthorised encroachment by the gate within three days. Accordingly, the gate has been removed. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also pointed out that steps are being taken to remove the Guard Room which is also unauthorised. 5. The petitioner has filed a replication, stating that the encroachment remains even after removal of the gate. 6. Since this aspect will involve disputed questions of fact which have to be gone into on evidence, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this petition and take his remedies in accordance with law. 7. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 01, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2