CWP No.8820 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8820 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.07.2011 Thakurdwara Kheri Naga ....Petitioner Versus Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Impugned order was passed on 13.4.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that warrant of possession was issued in favour of the petitioner on 12.4.2005 pursuant to order dated 31.3.2004 passed by District Collector (ADC) Sangrur. He has further stated that in compliance of warrant of possession dated 12.4.2005, possession was handed over to the petitioner on 12.4.2005 itself, however, on the very next dated i.e. 13.4.2005 appeal was allowed by Divisional Commissioner vide order impugned. Learned counsel has further stated that possession was taken back from the petitioner on 3.5.2005 since appeal against the order of possession was allowed by learned Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 13.4.2005. Learned counsel has fairly accepted that dera through the then Receiver acquired knowledge about the impugned order dated 13.4.2005 on 3.5.2005 when CWP No.8820 of 2011 -2- possession was taken back from the dera. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, argued that since on 13.4.2005 Receiver was acting on behalf of dera, therefore, Mahant could not know about the outcome of the appeal and about the delivery of the possession back in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel has further argued that Receiver continued till 26.9.2010 and on 27.9.2010 property of the dera was given to Mahant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that for the lapses on the part of the Receiver for not challenging the order dated 13.4.2005, dera should not be allowed to suffer adversely. He has further argued that Mahant must be permitted to challenge order dated 13.4.2005 by way of present petition. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, I find that there is no reasonable and sufficient explanation from the side of the petitioner for the condonation of the laches. Even if entire arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are accepted, there is no explanation as to why impugned order dated 13.4.2005 was not challenged immediately after 27.9.2010 when Mahant took charge of the dera from the Receiver. Present petition is hopelessly barred by principle of laches. I am not inclined to invoke my jurisdiction at this stage after expiry of almost six years. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge July 14, 2011 R.S.