CR-6539 101 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Surjit Kaur State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: HARKESH MANUJA, CM-7955 allowed. Bathinda Development Authority, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Additional Chief Administrator is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.2. tag the same at appropriate place. MAIN CASE No.1272- 6539-2017 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Date of Decision: Surjit Kaur VERSUS State of Punjab & anr. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate & Mr. Sohailbir Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Karan Gupta, Advocate for the applicant/ BDA (CM-7955-CI-2019) **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 7955-CI-2019 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Bathinda Development Authority, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Additional Chief Administrator is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.2. Amended memo of parties is taken on recor tag the same at appropriate place. MAIN CASE: In view of the order passed in 9153 -2002, titled as Surjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, no further IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R-6539-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.09.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent HARKESH MANUJA Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate & Mr. Sohailbir Singh Sidhu, Advocate Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Karan Gupta, Advocate for the applicant/ BDA. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Bathinda Development Authority, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Additional Chief Administrator is ordered to be impleaded Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry to In view of the order passed in 9153-CI-2017 in RFA 2002, titled as Surjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, no further ...Respondents For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Bathinda Development Authority, Bhagu Road, Bathinda through its Additional Chief Administrator is ordered to be impleaded d. Registry to 2017 in RFA 2002, titled as Surjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, no further CR-6539 cause survives in the present petition and as such the same is disposed 2. disposed of. 03.09.2025 sanjay 6539-2017 (O&M) [2] cause survives in the present petition and as such the same is disposed of. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 2025 ( Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether reportable ? cause survives in the present petition and as such the same is Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No Yes/No cause survives in the present petition and as such the same is Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand