IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 9202-C of 2008 and RSA No. 3102 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 01, 2009 State of Punjab and others ...... Appellants Versus Harinder Pal Singh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.M.S.Sindhu, Addl.AG, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. Akshay Bhan , Advocate for the respondent. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 9202-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded in the application, the delay of 91 days in filing the present appeal stands condoned. RSA No. 3102 of 2008 This appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab and others against the conditional decree passed by the lower appellate court wherein it has been mentioned as follows:- “................. but as far as the disputed part is concerned, the plaintiffs will only be entitled to raise construction after getting demarcation duly conducted himself by Tehsildar, according to Rules in the presence of any of RSA No. 3102 of 2008 -2- representative of defendants. The respondents/plaintiffs will apply for demarcation within a period of one month and demarcation will be affected within next one month. If khasra No. 2213/1 will be found to be encroached after due demarcation, as per rules framed by Financial Commissioner Revenue, then plaintiffs will not to raise construction in the disputed part; and if will be entitled it is on the entire khasra No.2213/1, no portion of it is encroached,as per demarcation in their written statement in para no.7, then plaintiff will be entitled to raise construction in entire khasara No. 2213/1. With these conditions, the appeal stands dismissed.” A perusal of the order issuing notice of motion reveals that the said demarcation report was actually prepared and a copy of the same was placed on the record as Ex.CX. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the respondent is bound by the decree of the lower appellate court which has otherwise taken due cognizance of the interest of the state. In this view of the matter no further action needs to be taken in the matter. Consequently the present appeal is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 01, 2009 sunita