HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.

CRM-W-186-2022

1. This is an application for recalling order dated 19.07.2021 passed by this Court, vide which the main petition i.e. CRWP-1204-2019, was dismissed for non-prosecution and for restoring the same to its original number.

2 .Notice of the application.

3 .On the asking of this Court, Mr. Harbir Sandhu, AAG Punjab accepts notice and submits that he has no objection if the present application is allowed.

4. Keeping in view the above, the present application is allowed and the main petition i.e. CRWP-1204-2019 is restored to its original number and stage.

CRWP-1204-2019

5. Through this petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing official respondents No.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner at the hands of private respondents No.7 to 9.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the owners of land measuring 7 acres situated at the IndoPak Border; that out of the said land, 01 acre belongs to the Punjab Government; that the petitioners used to cultivate the said land for the last 30-40 years and that the petitioners were issued identity cards/gate pass by the BSF to pass across the fencing to cultivate their land. He further submits that private respondents No.7 to 9 along with Company Commander BSF, Fazilka and ASI Police Station Sadar Fazilka, have obstructed the petitioners in cultivating their lands and damaged their crops and asked the petitioners to prove their ownership and possession.

7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioners have not approached the local police before or even after filing of the present petition.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. Paras 2 to 4 of the reply dated 26.02.2020, would read as under:-

2. That it is submitted that as per the pleadings of the present petition, there is a dispute between the petitioners and private respondents No.7 to 9 regarding possession of one acre of land comprised in Rect. No.14 Killa NO.22(4-0) situated at the revenue estate of Village Gang Bakshani (across the fencing line) which according to the petitioners, is owned by the Punjab Government.

3. That the petitioners never approached the police either before filing of the present petition or after filing the present petition with particulars of one acre of land which they allege to be in possession of the same and private respondents No.7 to 9 are bent upon to take the possession of the same from the petitioners illegally, forcibly. Further, the detail of the land in dispute has neither been given the present petition nor there is any such details in the alleged representation (Annexure P-7). Even on asking by the police, the petitioners have not given the detail of the disputed land which according to them is owned by the Punjab Government and he is in possession of the same.

4. That the police made the enquiry at its own level and during the enquiry, it has been found that as per the revenue record, part of the disputed land comprised in Rect. No.14 Killa No.22(4-0) is the ownership of one Subhash Chander son of Mehar Chand and further khasra girdwari is also in the name of the said Subhash Chander. The private respondents No.7 to 9 stated that they never threatened the petitioners and they will not cause any harm to the petitioners and for the alleged dispute of one acre of land, they will be bound by the Order of the Hon'ble Court, Copy of the private respondent No.8/Bagicha Singh is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1/T

10. Above all, statement of respondent No.8-Bagicha Singh has been recorded, in which he has specifically stated that he and his other family members have never threatened the petitioners; that the disputed land is situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Gang Bakshani (across the fencing line); that the parties are pursuing their cases relating to the disputed land before the Courts concerned and that they would be bound by the orders of the Court concerned.

11. There is no counter to the aforesaid factum by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

12. Keeping in view the above, no further orders are called for in this petition.

13. Disposed of.