IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.2318 of 2007 Date of Decision:24.04.2007 Dwarka Nath and another .....Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** M.M.Kumar, J. (Oral) It is conceded position that the whole demand raised by the Haryana Financial Corporation- respondent No.2 stands satisfied. Mr. Puneet Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has categorically stated that the amount has been paid by the petitioners under the settlement scheme. It has also been pointed out that the petitioners have a son who is a partner in the firm, namely, M/s Indira Dinesh Chemicals, 131, HSIDC, I.E.Kundli, District Sonepat. The son of the petitioners is not before the Court nor he has paid anything for settling the account on behalf of the present settlement albeit a small amount. Some litigation is also stated to be pending between the parties. Mr. Hemant Saini, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the entire dues of the Corporation have been cleared by the petitioners. Despite the fact that whole dues have been cleared, the possession is not being given to the petitioners. In view of the above, we dispose of the writ petition by directing respondent No.2 to deliver the possession of the property in dispute to the petitioners on behalf of the firm, at the earliest. The writ petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE April 24, 2007 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) renu JUDGE