IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4629 of 1986 Date of decision : 08.11.2011 Ramesh Chander ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Malawa Ram and others ....RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KANNAN *** Present : None for the petitioner. Mr.Ashok Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.7 (III). Mr.O.P.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.11 & 12. None for remaining 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 ? *** K.KANNAN, J (Oral) 1. There is no representation for the petitioner. When it was noticed that the counsel appearing for the petitioner had died, notice was issued to the petitioner and the same has been received back unserved with report that he does not reside at the same place. The notice has been issued only at the address which is mentioned in the petition. The above writ petition has been identified by the administrative section of the High Court as one among the oldest cases with specific direction for expeditious disposal. I proceed to dispose of the case on merits on the basis of the documents and on the basis of the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the tenant who is a private respondent. Civil Writ Petition No.4629 of 1986 -2- 2. The order in challenge is collection of orders under Annexures P1 to P-4 where proceedings had been directed to be adjourned sine-die in view of the pendency of the surplus area proceedings, as regards the very same properties for which the landlord had claimed that the decisions of the authorities declaring the property as surplous, was not valid. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that the challenge to surplus area proceedings ended against the landlord and the properties cultivated by the tenants had been declared as surplus and properties were also subsequently allotted to the tenants by the State under the disposal of surplus lands scheme. Nothing can survive for consideration under the present circumstanes and I would hold that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Accordingly dismissed. ( K.KANNAN) November 08, 2011. JUDGE mamta