IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 20779 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: December 10, 2008 Radhey Sham …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Sat Narain Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. There is no averment in the whole of the petition to the effect that the plot on which the petitioner has allegedly constructed a house is in a specified colony, which has been regularised. In para 8, a vague averment has been made that the house of the petitioner is situated in a colony which has been regularized on 17.12.2004. Therefore, the petition cannot be entertained on the basis of vague averments. C.W.P. No. 20779 of 2008 Accordingly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh one on the same cause of action, if so advised. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) December 10, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 2