IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.19588 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 28, 2011 M/S AASHISH DYEING ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Sonu Chahal, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed praying for re-demarcation of the land, purportedly owned and possessed by the petitioner to set up a factory. 2 It seems that earlier the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP 12577 of 2008. The case was disposed of vide order dated 30.1.2009 (Annexure P-1) with directions to the respondents to depute a senior revenue officer not below the rank of Tehsildar, who shall visit the disputed site after notice to the petitioner and carry out re-demarcation. In case, it is found that the petitioner has encroached upon a part of Khasra number or has raised any construction over that part, the respondents shall be entitled to proceed further with the eviction Civil Writ Petition No.19588 of 2009 2 proceedings already initiated against the petitioner under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. 3 In deference to order dated 30.1.2009, the demarcation has been conducted. Report has been placed on record as Annexure R-6 with the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. It has been stated that after demarcating Khasra No.47, it has been found that demarcation previously done was true and correct. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner has made allegation that site of the petitioner was never inspected or demarcated. Some land two kilometers away, has been demarcated. 5 There is no allegation of mala fide against any person by name. The petition itself is without proper foundation insomuch as the boundaries of the land have not been shown by way of placing on record copy of the sale deed; permissions granted under the Factories Act; documents emanating from the Industries Department, etc. 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the petition to file a better petition with proper foundation so as to make out a case for re-demarcation. 7 Ordered accordingly. April 28, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?