CR No.2331 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2331 of 2011 Date of Decision: 12 - 8 - 2011 Rajbir and another ....Petitioners v. Haryana Urban Development Authority ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Raman Gaur, Advocate for the respondent. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been filed to assail the order dated 26.2.2011, Annexure P2, passed by the District Judge, Gurgaon. In the present case, suit, Annexure P3, was filed by the petitioners seeking permanent injunction against the Haryana Urban Development Authority not to construct a cremation ground by changing use of the suit land. In response to the notice issued, a written statement was filed by the defendant wherein it was averred that as per layout plan, cremation ground was to be constructed on an area of 10.13 acres and this was duly approved by the Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority on 7.2.2008 and rest of the land was to be used for CR No.2331 of 2011 [2] green belt/forest land surrounding the cremation ground. The District Judge vide impugned order dated 26.2.2011 while vacating the ad-interim injunction had observed as under:- “6. ....The above reasoning is faulty because Master Plan does not necessitate showing different kinds of facilities to be provided in a particular sector or area which aspect are only set out in the layout plan. As per the said layout plan dated 28.12.2006 with reference to Administrator Gurgaon; letter No.12799 dated 19.12.2008, cremation ground is to be constructed over an area measuring 8.50 acres with due provision for Electric Crematorium, Christian Graveyard, Muslim Graveyard and children graveyard. The said drawing also shows provisions of 50 meters wide Forest Belt on three sides i.e. Towards North, South and East and a 100 meter vide Forest belt in the West. ....” Mr.Raman Gaur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has stated that in the last six months, the constructions is in full swing and is near completion. Thus, at this stage, taking into consideration the statement made by counsel for the respondent and the reasons given by the District Judge, no interference is warranted. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) August 12, 2011. JUDGE RC