IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 12 of 2009. Date of Decision: 19th March, 2009. Som Nath ....Petitioner through Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ..Respondents through Mr. G.S.Attariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 22.1.1991, 19.5.2005, 26.9.2006, 14.2.2008, 12.8.2008 and 11.12.2008 [Annexures P-2, P-4, P-6, P-7, P-8 and P-16 respectively] whereby premises No. 525, Phase I, Mohali has been resumed and eviction order has been passed. Suffice it to say that the afore-stated action has been taken against the petitioner on account of more than one building violations committed by him while constructing the site. While issuing notice of motion, this Court passed the following order on 6.1.2009:- “After arguing the case on merits for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to demolish the entire unauthorized construction raised by him and also to pay the balance amount towards sale consideration of the plot. Notice of motion for 12.02.2009. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to demolish the entire unauthorized construction raised by him within one month from today and to produce the photographs to that effect on the adjourned date. The Estate Officer, GMADA, Mohali is also directed to depute the field staff to visit the petitioner's house and submit the status report on the adjourned date as to whether or not the unauthorized construction has been completely removed. The petitioner shall also pay the outstanding dues within one month. Subject to the conditions aforesaid, dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed till further orders”. On 12.2.2009, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that due installments have been deposited and in compliance to the order dated 6.1.2009, reproduced above, unauthorized construction has been demolished. Learned counsel for the respondents was accordingly asked to verify the stand taken on behalf of the petitioner. A short affidavit dated 6.3.2009 has been filed by learned counsel for respondent No. 3, Paragraph 3 whereof reads as under:- “That as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the field staff was deputed and it has been reported that the petitioner has demolished/removed the unauthorized construction. It has also been found from the record that the balance amount has also been deposited by the petitioner”. Learned counsel for the petitioner states at the bar that in future, the petitioner shall not raise any unauthorized construction over the subject plot. In view of the fact that the petitioner has removed the unauthorized construction and has given an undertaking not to raise any such construction in future, I am of the view that the very basis of resumption has disappeared. The resumption being the last resort, in the changed circumstances, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are hereby quashed. No costs. March 19, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE