IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1364 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 9.12.2009 M/s Eastman International & others. -----Appellants Vs. State of Punjab & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Deepak Thapar, Advocate for the appellants. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants, challenging order dated 21.10.2009 restoring plot in question to respondent No.6. 2. On 21.11.1996, Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Limited (PSIEC) allotted plot measuring 1000 sq. yards to respondent No.6. The said plot was later replaced by another plot, vide order dated 29.8.2007. This allotment was sought to be cancelled by passing order dated 11.2.2009. Respondent No.6 challenged the said order on the ground that he was not heard before the allotment was cancelled. This Court vide order dated 13.7.2009, directed that respondent No.6 as well as the appellants, at whose instance allotment was cancelled, be LPA No.1364 of 2009 heard by the PSIEC and fresh order passed. Accordingly, fresh order dated 20.11.2009, Annexure P-1, was passed by the Secretary to the Government, after giving hearing to the respondent No.6 as well as the appellants. 3. The appellants filed writ petition alleging that the allotment in question violated their right to easement as the plot in question was in fact a passage. 4. Learned Single Judge held that there being a finding of fact recorded in the impugned order that the plot in question was not a passage but land belonging to PSIEC, no interference was called for. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 6. The appellants having been heard on question of fact and order being passed, in absence of any prior adjudication on the right of the appellants to easement on the plot in question, we cannot go into the question raised in support of the appeal that the allotment was illegal. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this order will not debar the claim of the appellants being adjudicated upon at appropriate forum. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 09, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 2