( 1 ) THE writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court and while disposing the same on 4th October, 1997, the Division Bench gave following direction, namely:-

(I) Within four weeks from today the respondent DDA shall make an application afresh to Tehsildar, Delhi for demarcation of survey No. 936/7 Min. Village Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi, out of which 6 Biswas land is claimed by the petitioner as Bhumidar in possession.

(II) The petitioner shall be treated as a party to the demarcation proceedings. The petitioner shall be noticed and demarcation shall be made by the Tehsildar in the presence of both the parties. The demarcation proceedings shall be concluded by the Tehsildar within six months from the date of appearance of both the parties before him.

(III) If the land on which the petitioner proposes to raise a building and as to which the building plan has been filed with the respondent-DDA falls within Khasra No. 936/7 Min. abovesaid, then the respondent-DDA shall not withhold the building plan of the petitioner merely on the ground of title and possession of the petitioner being disputed by the DDA.

( 2 ) AS per first direction the Delhi Development Authority (in short the DDA ) was to get the demarcation done afresh through the Tehsildar. When this direction was not complied with, the petitioner filed contempt proceedings against the DDA. However, subsequent thereto on 26th December, 1996 the demarcation by the Tehsildar was done in the presence of the officials of the DDA as well as of the private parties. From the said demarcation it was proved that the petitioner s property was situated in village Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi. This was so confirmed by spot inspection and demarcation carried out by the Tehsildar. After the said demarcation dated 26th December, 1996 when the building plan of the petitioner was not sanctioned by the DDA, the petitioner issued a legal notice to the DDA to sanction the plan. No reply of the same was received. Since his plan was not rejected within the prescribed period hence the petitioner commenced the construction on the presumption that his building plan deemed to have been approved. The building-plan was submitted by him in 1992 and as it had not been rejected, therefore, he started construction. The petitioner presumed that in view of the demarcation carried out by the Tehsildar, pursuance to the order of this Court, his plan could not have been rejected, as the Tehsildar s report and the spot inspection were in his favour. Hence he filed the application bearing No. 4685/97 seeking direction to the DDA to accord formal sanction of his building plan and in the meantime wanted restraining order against the DDA from obstructing the construction which he was doing.

( 3 ) DELHI Development Authority in the meantime vide application beening No. 5561/97raised objections to the demarcation carried out by the Tehsildar on 26th December, 1996. The main challenge to the said demarcation was that "sihaddah" should have been taken as the starting point instead of north eastern corner. That the Tehsildar favoured the petitioner by ignoring to take the fixed point. He ought to have taken Karkari Mor as the fixed point which he in fact ignored, Tehsildar had not taken three distinct and fixed points for demarcation and finally the demarcation carried out by the Tehsildar showed that the disputed land fall in Khasra No. 445 in village Karkardooma.

( 4 ) FOR the above reasons, DDA submitted that fresh demarcation be ordered to be carried out by the SDM of the area.

( 5 ) THIS Court after considering the above objections came to the conclusion that prima facie the demarcation carried out by the Tehsildar was not in accordance with the directions given by this Court. The concerned Tehsildar was directed to produce the proceedings of the demarcation pertaining to Khasra No. 936/7 Min. alongwith plan. Pursuance to this Court s order, one Mr. Anil Sharm