CWP No.8456 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8456 of 2011 Date of Decision: 13.05.2011 Neelam ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh, Present: None for the petitioner. for the petitioners. --- Ranjit Singh, J . (Oral) This writ petition was filed as urgent petition and came up for hearing on 12.05.2011. Counsel for the petitioner chose not to appear. A request was made on his behalf for adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel was in personal difficulty. Request was granted and the case was adjourned for today. Today some other counsel appeared in the morning and prayed for permission to withdraw this writ petition. This prayer was not considered as the counsel appearing was not having any authority to put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner, specially to seek withdrawal of the petition. On his request the case was passed over for the counsel CWP No.8456 of 2011 2 for the petitioner to appear. No one has come to appear when the case has been called over and again. It is stated that respondent No.3 has got a licence for setting up residential colony. The petitioner refused to sell his land to respondent No.3 but he has carried out some construction over his land. The relief claimed in the writ petition is for removal of illegal construction over the land of the petitioner. How the writ remedy would be appropriate is not understood. Relief claimed apparently is misconceived. In case some encroachment on the land by the petitioner is made then he has to seek normal remedies available under law. Writ court is not an appropriate forum to decide disputed question of title. The petitioner has made averment in the petition that respondent No.3 has carried out construction by violating the terms of licence. Is this the grievance or that petitioner land is being used for construction without authority. Nothing clearly has emerged for the brief pleading made in the petition. This seems to be something which is kept rather than being fairly disclosed. None appearance of the counsel has not helped the cause of the petitioner nor the cause of the counsel who has chosen to remain absent despite being requested to appear and assist. Writ petition, therefore, is dismissed being totally misconceived and misplaced. (Ranjit Singh) 13.05.2011 Judge rp