2025:UHC:2481 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CLCON No.119 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Nikhil Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The instant contempt petition has been moved by the petitioner for non compliance of judgment and order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 22.03.2010 in WPMS No.2007 of 2008, “Harimohan and others versus Sohan Lal and others. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the judgment and order dated 22.03.2010, the High Court clearly observed that the authorities can proceed with the demarcation of the plot No.276/49 but without disturbing the possession over the plot No. 276/50 and plot No. 276/6/37. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that now the revenue officials proceeded with the demarcation for which a notice was given to the petitioner on 18.03.2025 and under the garb of this notice, the Revenue Officials are making an attempt to dispossess the petitioner from the plot bearing Plot No. 276/50 and plot No.276/6/37. 5. On perusal of Annexure 4, the notice of the Revenue Inspector of Tehsil Rishikesh District Dehradun dated 18.03.2025, it is very clear that the demarcation is being carried out only in Plot No. 276/49 and not in Plot No. 276/50 and plot No.276/6/37. 6. It appears that there is an apprehension of the petitioner that under the garb of the notice of the demarcation, which pertains to Plot No. 276/49, an attempt is being made by the revenue officials to dispossess the petitioner, is thoroughly misconceived. 7. In the order passed by the High Court dated 22.03.2010, only this much direction was issued to the revenue officials to go for demarcation with only Plot No. 276/49 without disturbing the possession of the defendant over Plot No. 276/50 and plot 2025:UHC:2481 No.276/6/37, therefore there is no any question for disturbing the possession of the petitioner over the Plot No. 276/50 and 276/6/37. The apprehension of the petitioner is without any substance which is clearly evident from notice dated 18.03.2025 and even otherwise if the petitioner draws an adverse inference, he can avail the remedy, as per law, to challenge the notice dated 18.03.2025. 8. Thus on perusal of notice of demarcation dated 18.03.2025, no contempt is made out and as such the instant contempt petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 03.04.2025 R.Bisht 2025:UHC:2481