C.W.P. No. 6402 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) C.W.P. No. 6402 of 2011 Date of Decision:- 19.12.2011 Surender .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents (2) C.W.P. No. 6877 of 2011 Sushil Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present:- Mr. Narender Sura, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl. AG Haryana. Mr. V.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Mr. Raj Kapoor Malik, Advocate for respondents No. 5 to 9. **** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J(Oral). This order shall disposed of CWP No. 6402 of 2011 and CWP No. 6877 of 2011 filed by two real brothers seeking direction for quashing of order dated 10.7.2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Collector whereby respondent No. 8 Balbir in CWP No. 6402 of 2011 and respondent No. 6 Ishwar Singh in CWP No. 6877 of 2011, who were found to be in illegal possession of the land comprising the passage, were directed to deposit the costs of the land measuring 2 x 3 feet on which they were found in illegal possession and ordered for their dispossession from the remaining land, as well as the order dated 4.9.2007 (Annexure P7) passed by the Commissioner C.W.P. No. 6402 of 2011 2 whereby the aforesaid order was upheld in appeal. It is undisputed position that father of the petitioners filed a civil suit for injunction directing the respondents Dal Singh, Ishwar Singh and Bakshi for removing the illegal encroachment made by them in the street. The said civil suit was decreed on 7.4.1998 by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal. In execution of the said decree, possession of the respondents from the encroached portion has been removed and the passage has been made clear. Counsel for respondents further states that in terms of the impugned orders dated 4.9.2007 and 10.7.2007, they did not deposit the amount and they have accepted the impugned orders. The alleged illegal construction has already been removed in terms of Civil Court decree. In view of the said factual position, which has not been disputed by learned counsel for both the parties, both the writ petitions have become infructuous. Dismissed as infructuous. In case anybody raise any construction in future in the public street, it will be open for the affected person to question those illegal occupants in accordance with law. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 19.12.2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) reema JUDGE