COCP No.1500 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1500 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 27.10.2009 Kaka Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Sh.C.S. Aggarwal ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. G.S. Thind, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.19353-CII of 2009 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. COCP No.1500 of 2009 While dismissing RSA No.2755 of 1995 vide judgment dated 30.1.2008, this Court observed as under: “Even though this Court has great sympathy for the appellant but there is no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment. It is necessary to observe that the State of Punjab, in its reply has categorically stated that 10 acres of land has been allotted to the plaintiff- appellant and subsequently, it is found that the land was purchased by the plaintiff-appellant as a Scheduled Caste candidate. It is desired that the State of Punjab, should re-examine the question of allotment of land as not land has been allotted to the plaintiff-appellant at all. The State should honour its commitment/assurance to COCP No.1500 of 2009 2 an Army personnel, who has suffered injuries and lost his both eyes in a Bomb blast, while defending the country. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, for consideration and necessary action.” The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that despite the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the respondent has failed to re- examine his case. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, reply by way of affidavit of Sh. S.C. Agarwal, Chief Secretary to Government Punjab, has been filed wherein it has been submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, a speaking order dated 5.9.2008 (Annexure R-1) has been passed and the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. In view of the aforesaid fact that the claim of the petitioner has been re-examined, I am not inclined to proceed further in this petition. Rule discharged. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail any other remedy available to him in accordance with law for redressal of his grievances. October 27, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE