-I. . .l .. _..l ' 25-30. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 412/2007 DHAPU ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Adv. versus A.K.SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Parul Sharma, Adv. for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Adv. '' Mr. Yogendra Singh, Panchayat Sarpanch and Mr. Pappu Meena, Patwari. [26] + CONT.CAS(C) 413/2007 PREM SINGH ..... Petitioner Through : Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Adv. versus A.K.SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Parul Sharma, Adv. for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Adv. Mr. Yogendra Singh, Panchayat Sarpanch and Mr. Pappu Meena, Patwari. [27] ... + CONT.CAS(C) 414/2007 ANGOORI .. ... Petitioner Through : Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Adv. versus A.K.SHARMA ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Parul Sharma, Adv. for Mr. V.K. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified [28] .. ( I Tandon, Adv. Mr. Yogendra Singh, Panchayat Sarpanch and Mr. Pappu Meena, Patwari. + CONT.CAS(C) 415/2007 [29] HUKUM ..... Petitioner Through : Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Adv. versus A.K.SHARMA ..... Respondent Ms. Parul Sharma, Adv. for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Adv. Through : Mr. Yogendra Singh, Panchayat Sarpanch and Mr. Pappu Meena, Patwari. + CONT.CAS(C) 418/2007 [30] MUKUT ..... Petitioner Through : Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Adv. versus A.K.SHARMA Through: ..... Respondent Ms. Parul Sharma, Adv. for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Adv. Mr. Yogendra Singh, Panchayat Sarpanch and Mr. Pappu Meena, Patwari. + CONT.CAS(C) 426/2007 NANAK CHAND Through : versus ..... Petitioner Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Adv. f. > 'l 0/o A.K.SHARMA ..... Respondent Ms. Parul Sharma, Adv. for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Adv. Through : CORAM: Mr. Yogendra Singh, Panchayat Sarpanch and Mr. Pappu Meena, Patwari. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI ORDER 13.04.2010 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have willfully violated the order of the Court dated 22.3.2006. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per the order dated 22.2.2006, this court had directed the respondent to demarcate the land comprising of Khasra No.142-143, Village Chattarpur, after notifying the petitioners about the date of demarcation. Counsel for the respondent further submits that the demarcation was, in fact, carried out on 5.7.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no notice informing the petitioners about the date and time of demarcation was served on the petitioners. Counsel for the respondent submits that the date and time of the demarcation was pasted on the wall of shamshanghat, however, it is not disputed that no specific notice was served on the petitioners. CONT.CAS(C) 412!2007, CONT.CAS(C) 413/2007, CONT.CAS(C) 414!2007, CONT.CAS(C) 415/2007, CONT.CAS(C) 418/2007 and CONT.CAS(C) 426!2007 3/4 T TT T \ ( J 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, from Mr. Sameer Sharma, Patwari, submits that the demarcation shall now be carried out within a period of four weeks from today, after issuing notice to the petitioners at the address mentioned in the writ petitions. The respondent shall be bound by the statement made in court today. 5. Accordingly, let the demarcation be carried out by the respondent after issuing notice to the petitioners at the address mentioned in the present contempt petitions within four weeks from today. 6. In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the respondent, counsel for the petitioners does not wish to press the present contempt petitions. 7. Petitions stand dismissed as not pressed. G.S. SISTANI, J. April 13/2010 'msr' CONT.CAS(C} 412/2007, CONT.CAS(C} 413!2007, CONT.CAS(C} 414/2007, CONT.CAS(C} 415!2007, CONT.CAS(C} 418!2007 and CONT.CAS(C} 426/2007 T T ' 4/4 -T -- T 11-----.r- -T Tr-n-- T 'l