CWP No.11885 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 11885 of 2008 Date of decision: 14.7.2008 Shri H.B.Mittal and others ....Petitioners. vs. The Collector, Mohali and others. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Sudershan Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. -- J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral) The grievance of the petitioners in the instant writ petition is that the respondent-authorities have erected yellow pillars demarcating the wideth of National Highway No.22 passing through villages Baltana and Dhakoli near Zirakpur. It is the contention of the petitioners that the yellow pillars, referred to above, are in the private land of the petitioners and certainly beyond the land acquired for widening the National Highway No.22 vide notifications dated 25.1.2007 (Annexure P1) and 29.8.2007 (Annexure P2). According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the action of the respondent-authorities amounts to encroaching upon the land of the petitioners. In this behalf, it is pointed out that the respondent-authorities are trespassing into land beyond the yellow pillars. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioners served a notice dated 21.11.2007 (Annexure P3) highlighting their grievance. Through the instant writ CWP No.11885 of 2008 2 petition the petitioners pray for a writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondents to limit themselves and their activities to the land acquired by the notifications. The petitioners also pray for a direction to the respondents to make a correct demarcation of the petitioners' land. In the meantime, during the pendency of the instant writ petition the petitioners seek a writ in the nature of prohibition, so as to restrain the respondents from interfering in the petitioners' land. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. We have also perused the pleadings in the instant writ petition and the annexures appended thereto. There is no material on the record of this case authenticating the ownership of the petitioners in respect of the land depicted in the legal notice dated 21.11.2007 (Annexure P3). No site plan has been appended to the instant writ petition on the basis whereof it may have been possible for this Court to arrive at a tentative determination on the issue sought to be projected by the petitioners. Photographs of the land in question may also have been effective in demonstrating the factual position, which has been sought to be asserted in the pleadings of the instant writ petition. No photographs have however been attached. Keeping in view the pleadings and the prayers, the petitioners should have filed a civil suit. We are constrained to arrive at the conclusion that the instant writ petition is wholly cryptic and a misuse of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, consider it just and appropriate to dismiss the same with costs. The instant writ petition is accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified as Rs.10,000/-. The costs under reference shall be deposited with the Member Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Punjab, within one month from today and the receipt CWP No.11885 of 2008 3 thereof shall be placed on the record of this case failing which the Registry of this Court shall re-list the main case for recovery of the costs. After we had examined the merits of the claim raised in the instant writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association T.N. v. Union of India (2005) 6 Supreme Court cases 344, states that a direction be issued to the respondents to take a final decision on the notice issued by the petitioners to the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners also invited our attention to the observations recorded by the Apex Court in paragraphs 38 and 39 of the judgment, referred to hereinabove, so as to highlight the liability of the respondents to respond to a notice issued under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Having examined the instant plea advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we find no merit therein as well. Before the observations of the Apex Court recorded in Salem Advocate Bar Association's case (supra) can be given effect to, it would be essential to demonstrate that a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been issued to the respondents. We have perused the notice dated 21.11.2007 placed on the record of the instant writ petition, the same is not a notice issued under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and as such the observations recorded in Salem Advocate Bar Association's case (supra) would stricto senso not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Be that as it may, it is imperative for any government or statutory authority to respond even to a justice demand notice issued by an aggrieved party. In case the petitioners furnish a certified copy of this order to the authorities on whom the justice demand notice was addressed, CWP No.11885 of 2008 4 we hope and expect that a reasoned order would be communicated to the petitioners by treating the same as a legal notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Disposed of accordingly. In case receipt of costs deposited is not placed on record, the instant petition be listed for motion hearing after one month. ( J.S.Khehar ) Judge ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge July 14, 2008 rk