1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7448 OF 2003

    STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

     KULBHUSHAN & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We find that the High Court has given a positive  

finding confirming the judgment of the courts below  

that the mandatory provision of Sections 4 and 5 of the  

Punjab  Scheduled  Roads  and  Controller  Areas  

(Restrictions of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 had  

not been complied with.  The High Court also observed  

that as the factum as to whether the notice had been  

served or not was a question of fact and not that of  

law and dismissed the Regular Second Appeal on that  

basis.  At the time of arguments today, it has been  

pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant  

that it would be appropriate under the circumstances  

that  the  appellants  be  given  liberty  to  pursue  the  

remedies against the respondents as per the provisions  

of the aforesaid Act.

2

We find merit in this plea.  We leave it open to the  

appellants to pursue the remedies as per the Act.   

With  this  modification  in  the  judgment  under  

appeal, the appeal is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J     [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN]

NEW DELHI MAY 06, 2010.