IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP. No.841 of 2007. Date of Decision : May 3, 2010. Sunita Malhotra. Petitioner. Vs. Union of India and others. Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1,3 and 4 Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Central Govt. Counsel. For respondent 2. Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J(Oral). The petitioner challenges the show cause notice Annexure:P-7 dated 23rd April, 2007 issued by respondent No.4 under the provisions of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction or Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) on the purported ground that the petitioner had encroached upon the respondents’ land. The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the notice is without jurisdiction and does not satisfy the provisions of the ‘Act’ and the ‘Rules’ framed thereunder. _______________ Whether reports of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes. 2 The flash point is the demarcation carried out at the instance of the petitioner and the purported demarcation used by the respondents used for issuance of the notice. Without entering into the merits of the respective contentions of the parties and pronouncing anything on the legality of the submissions made, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the demarcation of the disputed land shall be carried out by the District Revenue Officer, Solan, who shall issue notice to both the parties that is the petitioner and the respondents No. 3 and 5 intimating the date on which the demarcation is to be carried out. He shall carry out the demarcation in accordance with law and shall provide opportunity to both the parties to present their respective cases. The demarcation shall be carried out in accordance with the revenue records in the presence of the petitioner or his authorized representative and respondents No. 3 and 5 or their authorized representatives. The Officer shall be free to fix his fee as also all incidental expenses which shall be borne by the petitioner and the respondents in equal proportion. Needless to add that in case no encroachment is found, the proceedings against the petitioner obviously cannot continue. However, in case any encroachment is found, the respondents shall be free to act in accordance with law. In such proceedings the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to put forth her a case according to law. This writ petition is accordingly disposed 3 of. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. May 3,2010 (R).