IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 109 CRWP-6496-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.07.2025. Amarjit Singh ...Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents. *** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR ....... Present: Mr. G.S. Madaan, Advocate for the petitioner. *** SUKHVINDER KAUR , J. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 528 of BNSS is for seeking protection to the life and liberty of the petitioner at the hands of private respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is an MBBS doctor and is General Secretary of O.B.C. Morcha actively working in Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar. The petitioner and his mother had purchased 6 acre land in village Budi and village Mehatpur, District Jalandhar from one Sukbir who had purchased the same from respondents No.5 and 6 and the same was duly entered in the revenue record. After getting CLU, the petitioner started constructing a resort on the said land. On 04.06.2025, the petitioner had participated in an open debate on media channel and discussed about failure of governance of Aam Admi Party in the State of Punjab and respondent No.8 politically threatened the petitioner by commenting openly on the social media. Thereafter, respondents No.5 and 6 under the influence of respondents No.7 to 10 starting interfering in peaceful possession over the above said land, regarding which the petitioner filed a civil suit, wherein the defendants were restrained from interfering in his peaceful KOMAL 2025.07.04 17:02 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRWP-6496-2025 (O&M) -2- possession. Thereafter, the private respondents by misusing the political influence started interfering in the peaceful possession over the property by causing harm to him and his men. Aggrieved against the conduct of the private respondents, the petitioner moved representations dated 16.05.2025 (Annexure P6 and P7) to the official respondents and the petitioner even approached respondent No.4, but no action was taken. Thereafter, respondent No.8 also visited the spot but was not successful in getting the forcible possession of the property in question. Ultimately, the petitioner moved representation dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-10) before respondent No.3, but no action on the same has been taken till date. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he would be satisfied if the representation dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-10), which had already been moved by the petitioner is looked into. Notice of motion. Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice and submitted that she has no objection if the aforesaid representation dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-10) is looked into. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3-Senior Superintendent of Police, District Jalandhar, to look into the aforesaid representation and to take appropriate action as per law, if any required at the earliest. Disposed of. (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE 04.07.2025. Komal Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/ No Whether reportable? : Yes/ No KOMAL 2025.07.04 17:02 I attest to the accuracy of this document