IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3224 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: October 22, 2008 Ramkali …Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate, for the respondents. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of direction to the respondents to allot surplus area measuring 49.82 Sq. Mtrs. at the back of the plot owned by her, as has been allotted to other similarly situated plot holders by letters dated 14.5.1992 (P-9) and 30.9.1986 (P-10). In the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 it has been asserted that the petitioner is resident of House No. 327, Sector 11, Panipat. Some land was left vacant behind Plot Nos. 323, 328 and 329 in order to make symmetry. The petitioner, who is C.W.P. No. 3224 of 2008 allottee of Plot No. 327 and at the back of this plot there is Plot No. 1900, which has already been allotted to some other person. The aforementioned plot was lying vacant and taking advantage of the situation, the petitioner has un-authorisedly and illegally encroached upon 18 Sq. Mtrs area of Plot No. 1900 and has also encroached upon un-authorisedly 31.82 Sq. Mtrs of HUDA land situated at the back site of the plot of the petitioner. The aforementioned encroachment is reflected in the site plan Annexure R-1. Despite issuance of notice on 25.1.2008 (P-7), the petitioner has not removed the encroachment and has preferred the instant petition. After hearing learned counsel for the respondents we are of the view that no relief deserve to be given to the petitioner who is herself an encroacher on the land belonging to the allottee of Plot No. 1900 and the HUDA land. She cannot seek any direction for allotment of 49.82 Sq. Mtrs of land. It is well settled that whosoever comes for equity must do equity himself. An encroacher cannot be granted equitable relief. Moreover, there is no legal right clothing the petitioner with a corresponding duty cast on the respondents. The writ petition is wholly frivolous and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) October 22, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 2