HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: CCP(S) No.389/2024 in WP(C) No.1341/2024 Kalyan Singh and another ..... Petitioner(s) Through :- None. Vs Babu Ram Choudhary .....Respondent(s) Through :- Ms. Chetna Manhas, Assisting Counsel to Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDER 22.09.2025 1. The instant contempt petition arises out of the order/judgment dated 07.06.2024 passed in WP(C) No.1341/2024, whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioners was disposed of at the very threshold, with the direction to the respondent No.3 to consider the case of demarcation of the land of the petitioners, in case, the petitioners have applied there for in accordance with law and applicable rules and in case, there is no other legal impediment thereto. 2. Since, the aforesaid order was not complied with, the instant contempt petition has been preferred in which notice was issued on 18.11.2024 and the respondents have filed the compliance report/statement of facts, in which the respondents have taken a stand that the demarcation of land in question initially could not be completed due to bad weather conditions in response to the application, however, the demarcation of the land under question was conducted in response to the Chairman District Development Council, Doda Sr. No. 22 2 CCP(S) No.389/2024 vide No.CDO/Council/Doda/2023-2024/10050-51 dated 13.02.2024 and in pursuant to the letter of Executive Engineer PMGSY Doda vide No.PMGSY/D/2024-25/1565-68 dated 15.06.2024. 3. The respondents have taken a specific stand in their compliance report that the demarcation report was sought in accordance with the order passed by this Court mentioned (supra). The petitioner was requested by the Patwari Halqa to collect the demarcation report from the said office but the petitioner did not opt to collect the report. The respondents, while filing the compliance report, have also placed the demarcation report on record. Since the respondents were called upon to conduct the demarcation and that order has been complied with, the instant contempt petition is liable to be disposed of on this ground. In view of the respondents’ stand and the demarcation report placed on record, the aforesaid order stands complied with. This is the precise reason that there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, no fruitful purposes will be served to keep this contempt petition alive, as the order passed by this Court stands complied with. 5. Accordingly, the proceedings in the instant contempt petition are closed. Rule, if any framed, shall stand discharged. (WASIM SADIQ NARGAL) JUDGE JAMMU 22.09.2025 Shammi SHAMMI KUMAR 2025.09.24 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document