IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.385 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 5.10.2009 M/s Janta Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. Panipat ......Petitioner(s) Versus T.C. Gupta and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. D.D. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) Sh. S.S. Dhillon, Financial Commissioner Cooperation (erstwhile Director of Town and Country Planning) Department Haryana and Smt. Subhita Dhaka, Estate Officer, HUDA, are present in Court. CM No.23163-CII of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in this application, personal appearance of respondent No.1 is exempted for today. CM stands disposed of. COCP No.385 of 2008: This judgment shall dispose of two petitions, i.e. COCP Nos. 385 of 2008 and 770 of 2007. In both the petitions, the grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the acquisition proceedings of the land of the petitioner were quashed and in spite of that, the respondents have illegally encroached upon the land of the petitioner-Society by laying down a sewerage line and road, thereby flouted the order of this Court wilfully. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, the COCP No.385 of 2008(O&M) -2- respondents have filed an affidavit wherein it has been stated that there is no violation of the judgment dated 2.9.2005 passed by this Court in CWP No.8711 of 1990. During the pendency of these petitions, the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat was also called as to whether or not digging/repairs/construction work was carried out at the spot by the Estate Officer, HUDA after 18.1.2008. The CJM, Panipat vide his report dated 17.7.2009 has submitted that the respondents have even failed to produce on record any evidence so as to prove unauthorized construction on the part of their land. Even otherwise, the stand taken by the respondents is that the case of the petitioner for licence of colony has already been rejected vide order dated 4.3.2008. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to seek an appropriate remedy for redressal of its grievances in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to seek any other appropriate remedy for redressal of its grievances in accordance with law. Rule discharged. Both the petitions are disposed of. October 5, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE