VIVEK CHAUDHARY, S.K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) The petitioner along with the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 are claiming compensation for the acquisition of a premises which has been described in the impugned order of the Claims Commissioner as House No. 10/12/16 (old no. 642/501). The petition discloses that the petitioner and the opposite parties no. 4 and 5 had already settled the dispute to the extent of share as was being claimed by them before the Claims Commissioner. In essence, it appears that the petitioner as against the contesting respondent was only to the extent of share which according to the petitioner has already been settled. Notices were issued to all the respondents vide order dated 24.08.2000. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent 4 died. A substitution application was filed on which notices were issued to proposed heirs whereafter the application was allowed and the amendment in the array of parties has been carried out. Notices to the proposed heirs were sent on several occasions, but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 to 6. Presumably because they also sail in the same boat as the petitioner in respect of the claim of enhancement of compensation and its wrong fixation under the impugned order. Sri S. B. Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondent nos. 1 and 3 prays that the matter may be adjourned for today in order to enable him to assist the Court after going through the records. The matter is adjourned for today. List in the next cause list showing the name of Sri S.B. Pandey as counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 3. ;