LPA No. 1363 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 1363 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.03.2010 Satpal Singh ....Appellant. Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Ramanjeet Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. On the call, none appeared for the appellant. There is one adjournment slip on behalf of the appellant to adjourn the appeal on the ground that instructions are incomplete. 2. We fail to understand, if instructions are incomplete how the appeal was filed by learned counsel for the appellant. None is present to press the adjournment slip also. Adjournment is refused. 3. Present appeal is filed challenging order dated 5.10.2009 passed by learned Single Judge whereby dismissing the writ petition, seeking direction to finalise the allotment of land in favour of the petitioner. LPA No. 1363 of 2009 2 4. Brief facts of the case are that Manorath Singh son of Nihal Singh, who was the father of the petitioner, was allotted land measuring 46 Kanals 7 Marlas in Village Powat, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. Sanad/certificate was issued by the Collector on 23.1.1980. The authorities did not allow the petitioner to deposit the installment on the ground that some litigation qua the land was pending. The petitioner being power of attorney holder of his father submitted representations to the authorities for allowing him to deposit the amount but the same was not accepted by the authorities on the ground of pendency of litigation. The petitioner again submitted representation in April 2005 to respondent No.3 permitting him to deposit the money saying no litigation is pending in the matter. Likewise, another representation dated 23.12.2005 was also moved. The petitioner sought information in respect of the pending case qua the allotted land; the petitioner received communication on 6.2.2008 from respondent No.3 informing him that no case was pending pertaining to the allotted land. The petitioner by way of writ petition sought direction to finalise the allotment of land and exemplary damages for withholding the land of the petitioner were also sought. Learned Single Judge did not agree with the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition. 5. Learned Single Judge has opined that the petitioner cannot claim enforcement of a stale claim; besides, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner had offered the price that was required to be deposited; the allegations of litigation pending in the Supreme Court are vague; therefore, it would be inappropriate to revive a dead claim after a lapse of 29 years. 6. We find no illegality or error in the observations made by LPA No. 1363 of 2009 3 learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 22.03.2010 sk.