IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2507 of 2006 Date of decision: 25.11.2008 Yog Chand & others .... Appellants versus State of Haryana & another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr.Amit Rawal, Advocate for the appellants Mr.Gagandeep Singh Wasu, DAG, Haryana. **** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** AJAY TEWARI, J.(ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court reversing the decree of the permanent injunction passed by the Trial Court restraining the respondents- State of Haryana & another from interfering into the possession of appellants except in due course of law. It is admitted by both sides that buildings of the appellants are still at the spot. The only question is whether there is any encroachment or not. The learned Trial Court had noticed that it was always open to the respondent to take action under the Public Premises Act, 1971. The Lower Appellate Court had reversed this by relying upon the report dated 21.07.1998 of Office Kanungo who had been appointed as Local Commissioner by the Trial Court. The Lower Appellate Court has noticed the points mentioned in the earlier reports in favour of the appellants but has RSA No.2507 of 2006 -2- not discussed their effect. In my opinion, the injunction sought by the appellants is innocuous. If the respondents come to a conclusion that there is any encroachment at the end of the appellants they have an efficacious remedy of moving under Public Premises Act (supra). In these circumstances, the contradictory findings regarding ownership/encroachment recorded by both the Courts below are set aside. At the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, liberty is granted to the respondent to take appropriate action as per law in case there is any encroachment at the spot after giving requisite opportunity to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has undertaken that against any such notice which may be served by the respondents, the appellants will only seek the prescribed relief and will not seek to obstruct the process by way of filing a civil suit. In lieu thereof, this appeal is allowed in view of the statement of the learned counsel for the parties. November 25, 2008 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE