IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8598 of 2008 Date of decision: February 2, 2009. Resham Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri ,A.K. Khunger Advocate for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Shri Malkeet Singh, Advocate for respondent(s) No.4 & 5. Shri T.S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for respondent No.7. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): In this civil writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to protect him and his family and property, which is stated to endangered at the hands of respondents No.4 to 7. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the official as well as the private respondents have filed their respective counter affidavits. It is revealed that there is a property dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents in respect of the agricultural land situate within the revenue estate of village Machiana, district Jalandhar. While the petitioner is claiming himself owner in possession of the disputed property, the claim of the respondents is that the subject property is owned by respondent No.4 and was leased out to the petitioner who is now disputing the title of the real owner. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and keeping in view the disputed questions of facts involved in this writ petition and the fact that threat perception, if any, to the petitioner or his family is to be assessed by the agency maintaining law and order, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to assess the threat perception, if any, to the petitioner or his family and in case they find any substance in the petitioner's allegations, to take an appropriate remedial steps as may be required in law, may be at the cost of the petitioner. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. February 02, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge