In RFA No. 2785 of 2005 Present: None. The aforesaid appeal was disposed of along with a bunch of cases vide judgment dated 4.3.2010 delivered in RFA No. 679 of 2001. The appeals filed by the Union Territory, Chandigarh were dismissed and the appeals filed by the landowners were allowed in terms of judgment of this court in RFA No. 1095 of 2000. The office has put up the file pointing out that inadvertently while passing the order in RFA No. 2785 of 2005, it was written as “dismissed” instead of “allowed”, though the appeal has been filed by the landowner. A perusal of the paper-book shows that the appeal was filed by the landowner. The appeals filed by the Union Territory were dismissed and that of the landowners were allowed. Accordingly, the word, “dismissed” is replaced with the word, “allowed” under my initials. This order shall form part of order dated 4.3.2010 passed in RFA No. 2785 of 2005. 5.4.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2785 of 2005 (O&M) Dilbag Singh ....Appellant Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. R.K. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellant. RAJESH BINDAL J **** For the detailed reasons recorded in RFA No. 679 of 2001 titled as “Bhagwant Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh”, vide separate order of even date, the present appeal is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 4.3.2010 JUDGE Reema