In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 171 of 1989 Date of decision: March 10,2010 Baldev Singh ..Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajan Gupta Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Addl.A.G. Haryana for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate for respondent No.3 .. Rajan Gupta,J(Oral) Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that a path was provided to the piece of land owned by him through the land of the petitioner. According to counsel, the petitioner submitted before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings that he had no objection to provide the proposed path. Thus, the petition in question was allowed and equivalent area was allotted to the petitioner as compensation from the land belonging to respondent No.3. Mr. Gupta, learned State counsel submits that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order and the same deserves to be sustained. The matter has been heard at some length. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Same was the situation on the last two dates of hearing. A notice was also served on the counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner earlier but the petitioner remains unrepresented. It appears that the petitioner is no longer interested in pursuing the petition. Dismissed for want of prosecution. March 10, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) nk JUDGE