IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 490 of 2011 Date of decision: 02.06.2011 Rinku and others ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shurti Jain, AAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioners are the farmers by profession and are owners in possession of the land measuring 92 kanals 6 marlas by the side of river Yamuna. The land was flooded with the river action during the last rainy season. When the water had receding, the petitioners wanted to make the land cultivable by removing the silt/sand/bushes. The land was flooded in August 2010. When the water receded, the petitioners started making their land cultivable by removing the silt/sand/bushes. They, however were not permitted to do so by local police on the ground that the petitioners were engaging in illegal excavation of sand of river bed of Yamuna. The petitioners approached respondents No. 2 and 3 and, accordingly, have approached this court with a grievance that they are to earn their livelihood from this land +being agricultural land, which they are not allowed to do because of action of the respondents. Civil Writ Petition No. 490 of 2011 -2- Notice of motion has been issued. Reply has been filed. The stand taken in the reply is that this writ petition is not maintainable and that the petitioners have suppressed certain material several facts. It is stated that the local police had not visited the spot nor interfering in the work of making the land cultivable by removing the silt/sand/bushes. As per the apprehension expressed, this writ petition seems to have been filed by the petitioner to extract sand from the bed of river Yamuna, which is in an illegal and unauthorised manner. During the course of arguments, the State counsel points out that no one is interfering in this case and the petitioners are free to mend their land to make it cultivable. If there is any apprehension of misuse of the area and of extraction of sand from the river bed, the respondents would be at liberty to take appropriate measures in accordance with law. The respondents shall not interfere in the work of the petitioners for making the land cultivable. In case, it is found that the petitioners are extracting sand then the respondents would be at liberty to take action in accordance with law but shall not interfere with the action of the petitioners to make the land fit for cultivation. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. June 02, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE