IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-11018 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.10.2011. Tejpal and another ….Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate for Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Bijinder Dhankar, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 11. NAWAB SINGH, J. (ORAL) Rejoinder has been filed. On April 8th, 2011, it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, as observed by Ritu Bahri, Judge:- “Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that petitioner No.1 had retired from Government service on 31.12.2010 and after retirement, he has gone back with his wife (petitioner No.2) to their native village in District Palwal. After reaching there, petitioner No.1 saw that certain land has been encroached by the private respondents and he is being threatened by them. Therefore, petitioners sought direction from this Court to provide security and protection to the petitioners. Petitioners have also made representations (Annexure P2) to SHO Police Station, District Palwal and Commissioner of Police, Faridabad Division, District Faridabad but no action has been taken.” Learned State counsel has stated that enquiry was conducted and it was found that land of the petitioners was not encroached upon by anyone. There is no threat perception. He is not residing permanently in village Attarchatta, District Palwal rather resides at Chandigarh. In view of this, no action is called for. Dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 12.10.2011 Ishwar