IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-33627 of 2009 Date of decision : February 4, 2010 Dalbir Singh Petitioner Versus The Senior Superintendent of Police, Rural Amritsar and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent – State DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) The present case came up for hearing on 18.1.2010 and prayer of the petitioner was that no action has been taken on the representation filed by him so far. Reply on behalf of respondent No. 1 was filed in the Court, without issuing notice of motion. Since notice of motion was not issued and the question of filing reply does not arise at all. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Ajnala, District Amritsar was directed to be present in the Court. Mr. Tilak Raj, Deputy Superintendent of Police is present in Court today. Learned counsel for the respondent – State on instructions from Mr. Tilak Raj, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Ajnala, District Amritsar states that copy of the petition was sent by post to the office of SSP litigation branch and was received on 3.12.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner also realises the mistake committed by his client as the copy was sent to the office of SSP directly so that official respondents may not say that they have no knowledge about representation submitted by him. Crl. Misc. No. M-33627 of 2009 2 Without going into the controversy of this fact, it would be in interest of justice that the matter be heard on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the police authorities in connivance with respondents No. 2 to 4 have dispossessed the petitioner from the land in dispute without any decree of competent Court of law and S.H.O. Police Station Jhander without going through the judgment and decree dated 8.10.2009 has asked the Tehsildar to call the Revenue Officer for demarcation of land so that actual possession can be handed over. Learned counsel for the respondent – State has very fairly stated that no such representation has been filed by the petitioner except copy of the petition sent through post by the petitioner and the same would be looked into by the concerned authority and necessary action would be taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that he would be satisfied if the directions be given to consider his representation which is annexed as Annexure P-7 with the petition. Without commenting on the merits of the case and contents of the representation, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 1 i.e. SSP, Rural, Amritsar to look into the matter and to decide the representation in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) 04.02.2010 JUDGE reena