IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 16620 of 2011 Date of Decision: 07.09.2011 Bhola Singh ..Petitioner Versus Commissioner Faridkot Division and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. J.S.Bhandohal, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to Annexure P/6, has vehemently argued that against the Naksha Be, objections were preferred, however, without considering the same, partition was finalized. Perusal of the record, particularly, order dated 24.9.2009 (Annexure P/4) would reveal that initially the Naksha Be dated 21.7.2009 was prepared and submitted.The petitioner filed objections (Annexure P/6) to the original Naksha Be dated 21.7.2009. Order (Annexure P/4) would also reveal that after considering the original Naksha Be, and objections thereof, amended Naksha Be was prepared and finalized. On being asked as to whether petitioner ever raised any objection against the amended Naksha Be, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that no objection was ever raised against the amended Naksha Be. CWP No. 16620 of 2011 -2- .. In view of the fact that against the original Naksha Be dated 21.7.2009, objections were raised by the petitioner and having considered the same, amended Naksha Be was prepared to which the petitioner did not raise any objection, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Dismissed in limine. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE 07.09.2011 som