Full Text
Translation output
A-12
% 28.09.2011
Present: Mr.Davinder Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mr.N.S.Dalai Advocate for the respondent no.l.
Mr.H.S.Sachdeva, Advocate for the respondents no. 2 and 4.
+CONT. CAS (C) No.587/2011
*
Status report has been filed.
This status report shows that on 11.4.2011 notice had been issued to the present petitioner to participate in the demarcation proceeding which were held on 21.4.2011. These proceedings dated 21.4.2011 had been signed by the present petitioner Jagat
Singh; his signature is clearly decipherable. It has also not been disputed. Record shows that these proceedings were not completed and as such a second notice dated 18.7.2011 was sent to the present petitioner informing him of the demarcation to be held on 28.7.2011; proof of dispatch by speed post is on record. Report dated 28.7.2011 is also on record.
It is thus clear that the directions contained in the order of the Division bench dated 28.9.2010 have been complied with.
These directions had directed the respondent no.l i.e. the BDO to have the area/property demarcated by involving not only the petitioner therein i.e. Bir Singh but also the persons claiming their structure on the other side of the road. The present petitioner (in
2011:DHC:9787 the contempt petition) is a petitioner of the second category. He is a person claiming that he has structure on the other side of the road. He having participated in these demarcation proceedings and having been granted an opportunity to participate in the demarcation proceeding, nothing survives in this i)etition. It is disposed of accordingly.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 nandan
2011:DHC:9787
% 28.09.2011
Present: Mr.Davinder Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mr.N.S.Dalai Advocate for the respondent no.l.
Mr.H.S.Sachdeva, Advocate for the respondents no. 2 and 4.
+CONT. CAS (C) No.587/2011
*
Status report has been filed.
This status report shows that on 11.4.2011 notice had been issued to the present petitioner to participate in the demarcation proceeding which were held on 21.4.2011. These proceedings dated 21.4.2011 had been signed by the present petitioner Jagat
Singh; his signature is clearly decipherable. It has also not been disputed. Record shows that these proceedings were not completed and as such a second notice dated 18.7.2011 was sent to the present petitioner informing him of the demarcation to be held on 28.7.2011; proof of dispatch by speed post is on record. Report dated 28.7.2011 is also on record.
It is thus clear that the directions contained in the order of the Division bench dated 28.9.2010 have been complied with.
These directions had directed the respondent no.l i.e. the BDO to have the area/property demarcated by involving not only the petitioner therein i.e. Bir Singh but also the persons claiming their structure on the other side of the road. The present petitioner (in
2011:DHC:9787 the contempt petition) is a petitioner of the second category. He is a person claiming that he has structure on the other side of the road. He having participated in these demarcation proceedings and having been granted an opportunity to participate in the demarcation proceeding, nothing survives in this i)etition. It is disposed of accordingly.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 nandan
2011:DHC:9787
JUDGMENT