ABDUL MOIN,J. - (1.) Heard.
(2.) The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non compliance of the order dated 18.8.2015. For the sake of convenience, operative portion of the order dated 18.8.2015 is reproduced below:- "During the course of the hearing, it has emerged before the Court that the appropriate manner in which the dispute can be resolved is to have a demarcation carried out so that the exact boundaries of the holdings in which the petitioners claim interest is duly settled and resolved. We, accordingly, permit the petitioners to apply for demarcation and direct that if such an application is made, a demarcation shall be carried out in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Thereafter, we leave it open to the petitioners if they are still aggrieved to pursue the appropriate remedy which is available in law. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of in these terms There shall be no order as to costs"
(3.) After filing of the contempt petition and not finding the demarcation having been done, this Court had passed various orders Consequently, a supplementary affidavit of compliance dated 11.1.2018 had been filed. In the said affidavit starting from paragraph 5 onwards the difficulties in carrying out the demarcation in pursuance of the direction of the writ Court, have been spelled out. It has also been indicated in sub paragraph 5 of the said affidavit that the respondent/contemnor has got necessary measurement conducted against the claim of the petitioner and the petitioner has been found having excess possession over certain area. The spot memo prepared dated 3.7.2017 and the decision taken in the matter dated 4.7.2017 have been annexed as Annexure-1 and 2 to the said affidavit of compliance. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently disputes that any such demarcation was carried out after associating him.;