RSA No. 1806 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 5606-C of 2010 and RSA No. 1806 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: May 12, 2010 Balwan and others ...... Appellants Versus Ashok Mohan Sukhbir and Company and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Arun Singal, Advocate for the appellants. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 5606-C of 2010 For the reasons recorded, this application is allowed. RSA No. 1806 of 2010(O&M) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the courts below whereby though the suit of the appellants has been decreed yet full relief claimed by him has not been granted. The suit was filed on the ground that the respondents had taken on lease adjoining land for the purpose of carrying out excavation of mining minerals like sand and Bajri etc. The appellants had filed a suit claiming that the mining operations should be limited within an area which would be at least 60 feet away from the land of the appellants so that no loss could be caused to the appellants by the erosion which would inevitably be caused by RSA No. 1806 of 2010(O&M) 2 by mining. On a conspectus of the entire evidence the learned trial Court held that even though the prayer for restraining the respondents for a distance of 60 feet would be excessive yet by accepting the plea of the appellant held that the respondents would maintain a safety barrier of 25 feet between the land of the appellants and their mining operations. In appeal filed by the appellants the learned Lower Appellate Court has upheld this finding. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the appellants have an easement right regarding his land of support naturally rendered by the subjacent and adjacent soil of another person? ii)Whether the respondents can be allowed to dig the lease which is adjacent to land of the appellant to any depth they like? It would be seen that these are all general questions. I asked learned counsel whether there was any independent material which would support the plea of the appellant that a cushion of 60 feet is required. No such independent evidence was pointed out to me. In the circumstances this Court has no mechanism to determine as to whether a safety cushion of 35,40 or 60 feet is required. Resultantly it has to be held that the questions proposed do not arise. Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 12, 2010 sunita