IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.661 of 2009 in Civil Writ Petition No.11381 of 2005 Date of Decision: 13.08.2009 Smt. Shayama Devi ....Appellant Versus The State of Haryana ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar. Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate for the appellant. J.S. KHEHAR, J. (ORAL) Through the instant Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has impugned an order dated 21-04-2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, disposing of CWP No.11381 of 2005. It would be pertinent to mention that the aforesaid writ petition came to be filed by the State Government, on an on-going process which came to be initiated by filing an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the Act, 1972) seeking eviction of Shyama Devi i.e., the appellant herein, who had allegedly made encroachments on khasra no.1350, which is, as per the revenue record, a road. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the Letters Patent Appeal No.661 of 2009 in Civil Writ Petition No.11381 of 2005 -2- appellant, that in the process of demarcation ordered by the learned Single Judge, the only justifiable demarcation could have been with reference to khasra no.1350, and no other demarcation whatsoever was necessary, on account of the fact that the allegation made in the petition filed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, 1972, was only to the effect that the appellant herein had encroached upon a road (falling in khasra no.1350). Although, there is an apparent justification in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, but the directions issued by the learned Single Judge must be deemed to be considered in the background of the special facts and circumstances of the case, namely, that various processes of demarcation have already been carried out to determine, whether or not, the appellant herein, namely, Shyama Devi, had made an encroachment on public land. Since the aforesaid conflict could not be resolved, the learned Single Judge devised a full-proof process based on the acknowledged factual that the plot over which the appellant has raised construction, was allotted to the appellant an allotment letter/sale deed containing its exact dimensions. In implementing the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, it would clearly emerge, whether or not the construction raised by the appellant is beyond the plot area, depicted in the letter of allotment/sale deed. As such, we find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 21-04-2009 passed by learned Single Judge. Dismissed. (J.S. KHEHAR) JUDGE (NIRMALJIT KAUR) August 13, 2009 JUDGE gurpreet