440 1l Ce0CPe Noe791Qf 2004 Present2 MreRS Mittal Senior Advocate with MrAtul Gour Advocate for the petitioner Counsel for the petitioner contends that despite orders of status 9110 regarding possession dated September 05 1994 and November 30 1994e respondents Nosel and 2 representing Punjab Wakf Board respondent j r NOe61 have executed a sale deed in favour of 0 respondents Nose3 and 4 and respondents Nos3 and 4 U ln connlvance with respondents Nos1 and 2 I have taken 0 Possession of a part of the land and are in the process I of constructing shoPS without obtaining permission for Z the change of user and without getting the Dlan 2 r sanctioned It is further contended that the whole I exercise is being carried out with the active support cS of respondent Noe5e 9 m 7Z N0t1Ce be issued to respondents Nose1 to 5 for August 10 2004 to show cause as to why PrOCedings under the contempt of Courts Act 1971 be not initiated against them Process be given Dasti also as prayed 27 2004 RAJIVE BHALLA ak JUDGE Pel 64 41 PV4 9 9u0 1 Ov 9 Pooja 2012.10.11 11: 33 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document