In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Letters Patent Appeal No. 825 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 09, 2009 Harpyari and others. … Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others. … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand. Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the appellants. J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral) Through the instant Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants, who are allegedly allottees of residential plots in Firoz Gandhi Colony No.2, Gurgaon, have assailed the order dated 30.03.2009 (Annexure P/13) passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Civil Writ Petition No. 4301 of 2008 filed by them on 03.03.2008. The first grievance of the appellants is based on the site plan (Annexure P/1) appended to the writ petition. On the basis of the aforestated site plan, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that shops have been constructed on an area reserved for a 9 meter wide service road, and as such, the determination rendered by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the claim of the appellants, for the demolition of the aforesaid shops is not in consonance with law. We have considered the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals, that the shops, which are subject matter of consideration, were constructed 20 years prior to the filing of the writ LPA No. 825 of 2009 petition. The aforesaid construction was effected by the Gram Panchayat, Gurgaon. Whilst the land on which the said shops were constructed, fell in the revenue estate of Village Gurgaon. The Gram Panchayat of Village Gurgaon, has been leasing out these shops ever since their constructions. Now, the area over which the said shops have been constructed, has been transferred to the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon. The aforesaid shops are now being leased by the Municipal Corporation. This factual position has been expressed in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents. The aforesaid factual position was taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge to record a finding, that the construction of the aforesaid shops could not be treated as illegal. We affirm the aforesaid conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge. As such, we find no merit in the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. The second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is based on the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge. The observations which are subject matter of challenge are being extracted hereunder:- “The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon to ensure that the tenants do not encroach upon any public land or path and carry out their business activities strictly, as per the Municipal bye- laws.” Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contends, that even if the claim of the appellants was not being accepted, it was not open to the learned Single Judge to pass an order to the detrimental to the appellants on the subject matter which did not arise for consideration before the learned Single Judge. 2 LPA No. 825 of 2009 We have considered the second submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. The observations extracted hereinabove relate to the tenants and not to the appellants herein. Be that as it may, even if it is assumed that the aforesaid observations also relate to the appellants, there is hardly any cause for the appellants to assail the same. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submitted, that no encroachment had been made on any public land by any of the appellants. He further submitted, that no commercial activity was being carried out by the appellants, and even if any such activity was being carried out by the appellant, the same was in consonance with the municipal bye-laws. If the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is factually correct, the appellants have nothing to worry about. Since the aforesaid observations are in the nature of directions to the Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon, for enforcement of the provisions of law, we are satisfied that the same were fully justified in exercise of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, so as to make the Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon aware of its duties and responsibilities. No other submission was advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellants. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge September 09, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3