A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant herein had filed cwp. No. 1509/92 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 31. 7. 2003. Although no body appeared on behalf of the appellants at the time of hearing, writ petition was dismissed on merits. The appellants on coming to know of the said dismissal order, moved CM. 9692/2003 seeking recall of the order dated 31. 7. 2003 on the ground that counsel for the appellants had missed out the matter when it was listed for hearing on 31. 7. 2003. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge thought it appropriate to hear the appellants on merits of the writ petition itself. However, after hearing the matter on merits, the learned single Judge passed impugned order dated 1. 9. 2003 maintaining his earlier order dated 31. 7. 2003 and dismissed the writ petition by giving additional reasons while dealing with the contentions raised by counsel for the appellants at the time of hearing. This appeal is preferred against the said order and judgment dated 1. 9. 2003. Although no formal notice was issued in this appeal, we heard the matter at length at the admission stage itself since counsel for the Land Acquisition Collector as well as DDA (respondents herein) were also present. This is how we proceed with the order in this appeal. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the appellants that the appellants 1 to 4 are tenants in occupation of premises RZ-1, Khasra No. 292/2, Village nangloi Sayed, Delhi for the last more than 20 years under late Sh. Partap Singh, the owner thereof and father of the appellant no. 5. CWP. No. 1509/92 was filed by the appellants seeking directions against the respondents not to interfere in their right to peacefully enjoy the aforesaid suit property and not to disturb their possession and further not to demolish the whole or any part of structure existing thereon. It was the case of the appellants in the said writ petition that in the year 1969, Delhi Administration by virtue of Notification issued under Section 6 of the land Acquisition Act, acquired the whole of the village Nangloi Sayyed except the built up properties. Since the property in question belonging to the father of appellant no. It was the case of the appellants in the said writ petition that in the year 1969, Delhi Administration by virtue of Notification issued under Section 6 of the land Acquisition Act, acquired the whole of the village Nangloi Sayyed except the built up properties. Since the property in question belonging to the father of appellant no. 5 was built up property, the same was left out from the acquisition in the Award made by Land acquisition Collector. It was also stated that the DDA by virtue of Notification dated 20. 2. 1981 issued under Section 12 of the dda Act declared 62 village abadies mentioned in the Schedule of the said notification as development areas which included abadi area of Village Nangloi Sayyad as well. However, by subsequent Notification dated 22. 6. 87 the DDA was pleased to denotify 55 Urban Villages including the village nangloi Sayyed from the provision of the delhi Development Act. The effect of the said notification was that the DDA was no longer concerned with this Village land and it was only MCD which could take development of the village. In the year 1985-86 house existing on the suit property was converted into a factory and was let out to the appellant no. 1 in 1986. Since then appellant no. 1 is running a factory of Auto parts. Appellants 2 to 4 are also tenants in other portions of the said property and doing their businesses therefrom. ( 3 ) ON 21. 7. 1986 the DDA issued notice under Section 30 (i) of the Delhi Development act on the father of appellant no. 5 calling upon him to show cause as to why construction which had been raised on the said plot be not demolished. Father of appellant no. 5 filed Writ Petition No. 1962/86 challenging the aforesaid action of DDA. This writ petition was dismissed on 30. 1. 1987. However, in an application made subsequently seeking review of the aforesaid order, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to pass order dated 6. 4. Father of appellant no. 5 filed Writ Petition No. 1962/86 challenging the aforesaid action of DDA. This writ petition was dismissed on 30. 1. 1987. However, in an application made subsequently seeking review of the aforesaid order, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to pass order dated 6. 4. 1987 holding, inter alia, that there was no dispute between the parties about the said area having been declared Development Area by DDA and the declaration of urbanisation of the village where the property in question was situated and also the exemption of urban villages from the applicability of the building bye-laws for the Union Territory of Delhi 1983. However, the Court further held that though the area was exempted from the building bye-laws of the DDA the same did not have the effect of dispensing with the permission for raising construction from the DDA as it was mandatory in the provisions of Section 13 (3) (1) of the DD Act and, therefore, the review petition was dismissed. Thereafter, notification dated 22. 6. 1987 was issued by the DDA de-notifying the said area as development Area and on the basis of this notification it was submitted in the petition that the Building Bye-laws were not applicable to the property in question and, therefore, the DDA could not take any action for demolition of the property in the absence of any sanction from DDA or on the ground that the construction in question was in violation of Building Bye-laws. It was also urged that in these circumstances the DDA has no jurisdiction to interfere with the possession of the property as well. ( 4 ) IT may be stated at this stage that as far as legal proceedings are concerned, only reference was made to CWP. No. 1962/86 and application for review filed therein. However, in the counter-affidavit filed by the DDA, disclosure of various other legal proceedings instituted by the appellants or other persons at their behest was made. DDA sought to highlight that by means of such legal proceedings the appellants tried to stall the contemplated action of the respondents. It was also stated that the land in question had been acquired by the Government vide Award no. 2202. The possession was also taken on 12. 3. 1969 and 12. 4. 1969 and the land was placed at the disposal of the DDA by notification dated 29. 4. It was also stated that the land in question had been acquired by the Government vide Award no. 2202. The possession was also taken on 12. 3. 1969 and 12. 4. 1969 and the land was placed at the disposal of the DDA by notification dated 29. 4. 72 and Notification dated 21. 7. 1981 issued under Section 22 (1) of the Delhi Development Act. According to the DDA this included the land in question which was subject matter of the writ petition as well. Thus DDA set up the case to the effect that although the land in question was under control, possession and management of the DDA, it is the appellants who were trying to encroach upon the said land and with this ulterior object several suits were filed by father of appellant no. 5 either in his own name and in the names of his relatives. In the rejoinder, appellants refuted various averments. However, the factum of filing various legal proceedings was not denied. The appellants maintained that possession of the suit land was not taken by the DDA and in fact it had been left out from acquisition and no Award was made in respect thereof. While dismissing the writ petition vide order dated 31. 7. 2003, in the absence of the appellants as none appeared, the learned ingle Judge observed as under: "in the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the land in question was already acquired and possession taken by the government as far back as 1969 and the land was placed at the disposal of the DDA vide notification dated 29. 4. 1972 under Section 22 (1) of the delhi Development Authority Act, 1956. It is alleged that the petitioners are trying to encroach upon the land and that the petitioners have instituted various suits and petitions in the name of one person or the other which were got dismissed when no interim relief was granted. It is further stated that even with reference to the suit filed by the petitioner, interim injunction was not granted on 20. 1. 1990 and the appeal was dismissed by the learned additional District Judge on 10. 2. 1992. Thereafter, the suit was dismissed in default on 24. 4. 1992. It is further stated that even with reference to the suit filed by the petitioner, interim injunction was not granted on 20. 1. 1990 and the appeal was dismissed by the learned additional District Judge on 10. 2. 1992. Thereafter, the suit was dismissed in default on 24. 4. 1992. The reading of the counter-affidavit shows that various proceedings have been filed by the petitioners or their relations or other persons trying to somehow prevent dispossessionfrom the land in question and whenever the parties have failed to get reliefs, separate proceedings are instituted thereafter. The petitioner has failed to make out or establish title to the land and the right to continue in possession thereof. Dismissed. " ( 5 ) AS pointed out above, the appellants filed cm. 9692/2003 seeking recall of the aforesaid order and at that stage the learned. Single judge heard the counsel for the appellants on merits as well but decided vide Order dated 1. 9. 2003 to maintain his earlier order dated 31. 7. 2003 dismissing the writ petition. A perusal of this order shows that the appellants had contended that there was a demarcation report dated 29. 10. 1992 which had been placed on record as per which the suit land did not form part of the acquired land. Since there was controversy as to whether the land in question formed part of the acquired land or not, order dated 9. 9. 1994 was passed in this writ petition by the learned Single Judge appointing Tehsildar of the area as Local Commissioner to carry out demarcation. Report submitted by the local Commissioner pursuant to the said order went against the petitioners as the Tehsildar found that the petitioners had encroached upon the public land. Taking note of this fact, learned Single Judge in his impugned order dated 1. 9. 2003 observed that as the appellants had encroached on public land, they were not entitled to the prayers made in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The leamed Single Judge also reiterated that the appellants herein filed numerous proceedings before the Civil Courts. Some of the proceedings were permitted to lapse and dismissed for non-prosecution while others were withdrawn depending at that stage whether petitioners had obtained any interim orders. The leamed Single Judge also reiterated that the appellants herein filed numerous proceedings before the Civil Courts. Some of the proceedings were permitted to lapse and dismissed for non-prosecution while others were withdrawn depending at that stage whether petitioners had obtained any interim orders. It was further not disputed that in the suits filed by the appellants, prayers made included for permission to them to continue to construct. , not to be dispossessed and no demolition, to be carried out. These very prayers were made in the writ petition in respect of same land and, therefore, writ petition was not maintainable on this ground also. On all these grounds writ petition has been dismissed. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that the writ petition was wrongly listed for arguments on 31. 7. 2003 as it was to be listed for directions and although the counsel for the appellants missed the same in the list, in any case it was not proper for the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition on merits by order dated 31. 7. 2003. He further submitted that giving sufficient cause for non-appearance on 31. 7. 2003 the appellants had filed an application for recall of the order. However, when this application was listed on 1. 9. 2003 the learned Single judge forced the counsel to argue the matter on merits on the same date and dismissed the writ petition. According to him the case should have been adjourned to some suitable date to enable the counsel to prepare the case on merits and make his submissions. ( 7 ) ON merits learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in relying upon the report dated 29. 10. 2002 of the Tehsildar. His submission was that there was no cause for appointing Local Commissioner to carry out demarcation in view of earlier demarcation report dated 29. 10. 1992. In any case report of Tehsildar/local Commissioner was not valid as demarcation exercise was done in illegal manner and not as per law and procedure as laid down by this Court in the case of Kartar singh Vs. D. D. A. and Anr. 83 (2000) DLT 529 (DB ). He submitted that appellants had filed objections to this report which were on record but were not considered by the learned single Judge while passing orders on 1. 9. 2003. D. D. A. and Anr. 83 (2000) DLT 529 (DB ). He submitted that appellants had filed objections to this report which were on record but were not considered by the learned single Judge while passing orders on 1. 9. 2003. He also submitted that many documents which were filed by the appellants along with cm. 13881/99 were not considered by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, he pleaded for reversing the impugned order. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents on the other hand heavily relied upon the demarcation report submitted by the Tehsildar pursuant to order dated 9. 9. 94 passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that earlier report could not be relied upon as there was controversy in respect thereof. Learned counsel submitted that as this report clearly establishes that the appellants were the encroachers of the land, the learned Single judge rightly relied upon this report while dismissing the writ petition. It was their further submission that the appellants could not convert writ petition into proceedings in the nature of a suit and compel the court to decide objections to the second report as this exercise would have necessarily entailed recording of evidence etc. They also relied upon averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the DDA pointing out filing of various suits by the appellants. ( 9 ) AFTER considering respective submissions of the parties, we are of the considered view that impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or blemish and the writ petition. filed by the appellants herein was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. ( 10 ) AT the outset, we may mention that the writ petition filed by the appellants herein is an abuse of the process of law. As already pointed out above, factum of filing of various suits filed by the appellants or their relatives etc. (as disclosed in the counter-affidavit) has not been denied by the appellants. The reading of counter-affidavit would demonstrate that one after other suits were filed with ulterior motives. Some of these proceedings were permitted to lapse and dismissed for non- prosecution at a certain stage after enjoying the stay orders or after the vacation of injunction order. Some other proceedings were withdrawn depending as to whether at that stage the appellants had obtained any interim orders. Some of these proceedings were permitted to lapse and dismissed for non- prosecution at a certain stage after enjoying the stay orders or after the vacation of injunction order. Some other proceedings were withdrawn depending as to whether at that stage the appellants had obtained any interim orders. Learned Single Judge has taken note of these proceedings without making elaborate reference of same. However, we deem it proper to record these proceedings in brief in order to fully expose the ill-founded motives of the appellants [the expression "appellanf"occurring in following paras shall include predecessor or other relatives of the appellant] : 1. On the same allegation mentioned in the writ petition No. 1509/92, the appellants had earlier instituted a suit for permanent injunction being Suit no. 585/89. It was interalia alleged therein that the petitioners are in possession of plots bearing khasra nos. 292/1 to 292/3 measuring 4 Bighas 7 biswas and 4 Biswas respectively situated in Village Nangloi Sayyed, Delhi and that the petitioner wanted to raise constructions on the aforesaid plots but the officials of the Delhi Development authority opposed and stopped the construction. The petitioner had sought a decree for permanent injunction against the Delhi Development authority from interfering in the construction and occupation of the said plots bearing Khasra No. 92/1 and 292/ 3. The petitioner also filed an Application for the grant of ad interim injunction. The court of Shri S. P. Garg, Ist Class, delhi vide his order dated 20. 1. 1990 did not grant ad interim injunction as asked for by the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal being Appeal no. 18 of 1990. The said appeal was decided by Shri S. N. Dhingra, addl. District Judge, Delhi by his Order dated 10. 2. 1992 whereby the appeal was dismissed. Immediately thereafter, the appellant got his Suit No. 585/1990 dismissed in default on 24. 4. 1992. 2. Father of Appellant No. 5 (who was petitioner in CWP. No. 1509/92) filed Suit no. 181/86 for permanent injunction in which he had alleged himself to be the owner in possession of land measuring 1 Bigha 14 Biswas in Khasra No. 95 situated in Village Nangloi Sayyed, Delhi. It was also alleged that on 15. 5. 1986, two officials of the Delhi Development authority came andasked him to remove the catties and the dung cakes. 181/86 for permanent injunction in which he had alleged himself to be the owner in possession of land measuring 1 Bigha 14 Biswas in Khasra No. 95 situated in Village Nangloi Sayyed, Delhi. It was also alleged that on 15. 5. 1986, two officials of the Delhi Development authority came andasked him to remove the catties and the dung cakes. He claimed a permanent injunction against the DDA restraining them from interfering in his possession in respect of the land measuring one Biswas bearing Khasra No. 95/1 situated in village Nangloi Sayyed, Delhi. The said suit was contested by the Delhi development Authority. A Local commissioner was appointed. The plaintiff did not get the commission executed and eventually the said suit was got dismissed as withdrawn on 207. 1989. 3. The appellant also instituted another suit in the year 1987 inter-alia, alleging that he was the owner in possession of house and Plot/ghar situated in Village nangloi Sayyed, Delhi. It was alleged that these were his ancestral properties. In the said suit, he alleged that a day before the filing of this suit, 10 officials of the Delhi Development Authority asked him to hand over the house and ghar otherwise, he would be dispossessed forcibly. On these allegations, he sought a permanent injunction from interfering in his possession in respect to the house and ghar in dispute situated in part of Khasra no. 92/1 and 292/1 to 292/3 at Village nangloi Sayyed, Delhi. The said suit was also contested by the Delhi development Authority. The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn pn 20. 7. 1989. 4. Another suit being Suit No. 238 of 1987 was instituted which was subsequently numbered as Suit No. 625 of 1988 against the-Delhi Development authority, inter-alia, on the allegation that the appellant was the owner in possession of the house bearing No. RZ-1 measuring 18 Biswas out of Khasra no. 292/2 situated in the Abadi of Village nangloi Sayyed, Delhi and a day before the filing of the suit, the officials of the delhi Development Authority threatened to forcibly dispossess him. 5. 292/2 situated in the Abadi of Village nangloi Sayyed, Delhi and a day before the filing of the suit, the officials of the delhi Development Authority threatened to forcibly dispossess him. 5. That the appellant instituted yet another suit being Suit No. 79 of 1989 against the Delhi Development authority as also Union of India and municipal Corporation of Delhi seeking a permanent injunction inter-alia on the allegations that he was the owner in possession of the house measuring 18 biswas in Khasra No. 292/2 and he had started reconstruction of his house on 12. 1. 1989 which was illegally demolished by the Delhi Development Authority. 6. Yet another suit was filed through smt. Rati Devi and Others against the delhi Development Authority and also against Shri Pratap Singh (Petitioner) claiming permanent injunction that the land bearing Khasra No. 292/2 measuring 18 Biswas was the Gair Mumkin Gitwar and that Pratap Singh had no right, title or interest in the said land. The said suit was got filed in collusion with smtrati Devi and Others. An application for interim injunction was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 28. 4. 1992. 7. The appellant filed another suit being suit No. 307 of 1988 against the Union of India and Delhi Development authority for interim injunction on the allegations that he was the owner in possession of the plots/ghar in Khasra no. 92/1, 290/1, 292/2 and 292/3 measuring 4 Bighas 7 Biswas, 18 Biswas and 4 Biswas respectively situated in abadi area of Village Nangloi Sayyed, delhi and that the Officials of the Delhi development Authority had asked him to vacate the said land. 8. One more suit for permanent injunction, against the Municipal corporation of Delhi and Delhi development Authority was filed alleging therein that there were various lands which were included in the Abadi deh of Village. Out of these lands, the land bearing Khasra No. 92/1 also fell within the Abadi dah of Village Nangloi Sayyed, delhi, and that on the portion of these khasra numbers, the house of the appellant existed and the remaining land was enclosed by boundary wall. He further alleged that he wanted to make reconstruction, additions and alterations but officials of the DDA were interfering in the said work. 9. He further alleged that he wanted to make reconstruction, additions and alterations but officials of the DDA were interfering in the said work. 9. Suit No. 83/92 against the Municipal corporation of Delhi, Delhi Development authority and the SHO Police Station paschhim Vihar, Delhi was filed on the ground that the appellant was the exclusive owner in possession of a plot measuring 750 sq. yards (150 x 45 ) forming part of Khasra 1 etc. , 292/2 situated in Abadi of Village Nangloi sayyed, Delhi. He further alleged that he started construction on the said property and that the DDA interfered in the said work. He sought permanent injunction in the said suit for restraining the DDA from interfering in the construction over the said property, i. e. , plot measuring 150 x45 , i. e. , 750 sq. yards forming part of khasra 1 etc. 292/2 situated in Abadi Village Nangloi sayyed. The notice of said suit was issued in the Delhi Development authority for 6. 4. 1992. On 6. 4. 1992, the said suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. 10. The appellant also filed suit no. 4/ 1992 against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi Development Authority and SHO alleging therein that the appellant was the owner in possession of piece of land measuring 800 sq. yards out of Khasra No. 92/1 situated in Abadi area of village Nangloi Sayyed, Delhi. He alleged that the said plot of land was his ancestral property and some construction existed on the said plot of land and that the defendants interfered in the construction work and on these allegations he sought permanent injunction restraining the Delhi development Authority from interfering in the making of construction over the said plot. 11. One Shri Harpal Singh, son of Shri pratap Singh and Virender, son of Shri munshiram filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Municipal corporation of Delhi, Delhi Development authority, and Smtanaro Devi, widow of Shri Kishore Lal alleging therein that they were the owners in possession of plot bearing No. H-42/1 measuring 3744 sq. ft. having purchased the said plot from Smt. Anaro Devi, widow of Shri kishori Lal. 12. ft. having purchased the said plot from Smt. Anaro Devi, widow of Shri kishori Lal. 12. One Shri Krishan Pal, son of Shri pratap Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Municipal corporation of Delhi, Delhi Development authority and the Commissioner of Police alleging therin that he was the owner in possession of two plots measuring 881 sq. yards and about 460 sq. yards bearing khasra no. 92/1 situated in the abadi of Village Nangloi Sayyed, Delhi. 13. Smt. Anaro Devi , widow of Shri kishori Lal also filed a suit for permanent injunction against the said Delhi development Authority on the allegation that she was the owner in possession of plot measuring 5 biswas bearing khasra no. 292/1, situated in Abadi of village Nangloi Sayyed, Delhi and that the Executive Engineer/junior Engineer and about 4 or 5 officials of the DDAcame to the said plot and threatened to dispossess her. On these allegations the said Smt. Anaro Devi sought a decree of permanent injunction from interfering in her possession in respect of plot bearing khasra no. 292/1 situated in abadi of Village Nangloi Sayyed, Delhi. The said suit is pending. 14. One Shri B. N. Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against the municipal Corporation of Delhi and Delhi development Authority alleging therein that he was the owner in possession of two plots measuring 500 sq. yards and 200 sq. yards situated in the Abadi area of Village Nangloi Sayyed, Delhi out of khasra NO. 92/1 and 292/3 respectively and that Shri Pratap Singh, son of Shri meher Chand had executed in agreement to sell in his favour on 19. 1. 1990 after receiving the entire consideration amount. 15. Another suit had been filed by the appellant on the allegation that he was owner in possession of two plots measuring 400 sq. yards and about 250 sq. yards bearing Khasra No. 92/1 and 292/1 respectively both situated in village Nangloi Sayyed, Delhi. The suit has been filed against a non existing property. ( 11 ) THE aforesaid tell-a-tale not only demonstrates the mala fides and ulterior motives of the appellants herein to retain the possession of the land in question illegally, it also amply establishes that one after other proceedings which are filed would clearly amount to gross abuse and misuse of the judicial process. ( 11 ) THE aforesaid tell-a-tale not only demonstrates the mala fides and ulterior motives of the appellants herein to retain the possession of the land in question illegally, it also amply establishes that one after other proceedings which are filed would clearly amount to gross abuse and misuse of the judicial process. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly observed that these proceedings were permitted to lapse and dismissed for non-prosecution while others were withdrawn depending at that stage whether petitioners were able to obtain any interim orders or not. That apart when the suits were filed earlier with the same relief and were either got dismissed in default or were withdrawn without any leave to file fresh proceedings, Writ Petition No. 1509/92 with same prayer was ultimately not maintainable and hit by the spirit of the provisions contained in Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC which are made applicable to writ proceedings as well (Sarguja transport Service Vs. State Transport appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and others, air1987 SC 88 ). ( 12 ) THE contention of the appellants that on 31. 7. 2003 the matter should not have been decided on merits in the absence of the appellants is without any force. The writ petition was of the year 1992. It was listed for hearing on 31. 7. 2003. The appellants did not appear. The appellants had obtained stay order in the matter. The learned Single Judge in these circumstances rightly proceeded to hear the matter when it was pending for more than 11 years and the appellants were enjoying the fruits of the stay. That apart, no grievance can be made on this account inasmuch as on appellants CM. 9692/2003 the learned Single Judge heard them on merit and thereafter passed reasoned order dated 1. 9. 2003 brushing aside their contention on merits as well. We also do not find any basis in the submission of the appellants that on 1. 9. 2003 case should have been adjourned to some other date for hearing the arguments on merits. ( 13 ) THE conduct of the appellants is amply depicted from the aforesaid facts viz. , they were interested only in delaying the matter. First they did not appear on 34. 7. 2003. If thereafter they appeared and moved cm. 9. 2003 case should have been adjourned to some other date for hearing the arguments on merits. ( 13 ) THE conduct of the appellants is amply depicted from the aforesaid facts viz. , they were interested only in delaying the matter. First they did not appear on 34. 7. 2003. If thereafter they appeared and moved cm. 9692/2003, there was nothing wrong in the course of action adopted by the learned single Judge in hearing the matter on merits on 1. 9. 2003. Order dated 1. 9. 2003 nowhere records that any request for adjournment was made. On the contrary reading of the order shows that counsel for the appellants had made his submissions on merits of the case. ( 14 ) EVEN on merits, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single judge. No doubt there was earlier demarcation report dated 29. 10. 92 of Tehsildar. However, there was some controversy about the validity of this report and keeping this in mind order dated 9. 9. 94 was passed by the learned single Judge, relevant portion of which is to the following effect: " The bone of contention appears to be as regards the construction raised by the petitioner. The contention of the respondent is that the construction has been raised on the part of the area which was acquired and placed at the disposal of the Development Authority in short (DDA) namely Khasra No. 92/2 and Khasra No. 292/4 situated in Village nangloi Syed. The contention of the petitioner is that construction has not been raised on any part of the land which has been acquired. In order to settle the entire controversy, it is but necessary that a proper demarcation is carried out in the presence of the petitioner and authorised representative of the DDA with the help of the necessary and relevant records. In order to settle the entire controversy, it is but necessary that a proper demarcation is carried out in the presence of the petitioner and authorised representative of the DDA with the help of the necessary and relevant records. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, Tehsildar Mehrauli is appointed as Local Commissioner, who will visit the spot after due notice to the petitioner through his counsel Shri s. K. Mahajan and the Commissioner (Land) DDA the Local Commissioner will carry out the demarcation with the help of the plans prepared during the course of land acquisition proceedings and"musavi" of the concerned village in accordance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner, for carrying out demarcation in this regard which are incorporated in Volume 1, chapter L-M of the High Court Rules and orders, relating to Hadd shikni cases. The Tehsildar will locate offending construction raised by the petitioner and ascertain as to whether the same has been raised on any part of the acquired land, namely, Khasra No. 92/2 or 292/4 if so, the extent of the construction raised on the acquired land will also be depicted in the plan to be prepared by the Local Commissioner at the time of demarcation. " ( 15 ) THE aforesaid order is a consent order. Thus it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants now to contend that there was no necessity to appoint Local Commissioner in view of earlier report dated 29. 10. 92. Once parties agreed to a particular course of action, namely, a Local Commissioner be appointed who would carry out necessary demarcation, it is not open for them to challenge this action thereafter. Moreover, order was passed on 9. 9. 94 and this order was accepted by the appellants who never challenged the same. It is only after the demarcation report submitted by the Local Commissioner, whowas none else but Tehsildar of the area, that the appellants took somersault as the report was not to their liking. It may be pointed out at this stage that in a detailed report Tehsildar/local Commissioner pointed out many encroachments made on the public land. After stating these encroachments the Tehsildar further noted as under: "as per Revenue records Khasra No. 92 and 292 of Nagloi Saiyad belongs to gaon Sabha. It may be pointed out at this stage that in a detailed report Tehsildar/local Commissioner pointed out many encroachments made on the public land. After stating these encroachments the Tehsildar further noted as under: "as per Revenue records Khasra No. 92 and 292 of Nagloi Saiyad belongs to gaon Sabha. An area measuring 4 Bigha 19 Biswas out of Khasra No. 92 measuring 15 Bigha 11 Biswas has been left out of acquisition. So an area measuring 10 bigha 12 Biswas was acquired vice Award no. 2202 and its possession was handed over to DDA. Similarly in Khasra No. 292 measuring 22 Bigha 1 Biswas and area measuring 5 Biswas of Khasra NO. 292/1 and 18 Biswas of Khasra No. 292/2 and 4 Biswas of Khasra No. 292/3 have been left out of acquisition. Remaining area of 20 Bigha 14 Biswas has been acquired vide Award No. 2202. It is submitted that the unacquired portion of Gaon sabha Khasra No. namely 92/1/1, 92/ 1/2 and 292/1/1, 292/1/2, 292/1/3 have been since vested in Union of india on urbanization of revenue estate of Village Nangloi Saiyad. So, both acquired and unacquired portions of khasra No. 92 and 292 are Government lands. Consequently, carving out different Tatimas out of 92 and 292 does not make any material change as regard to ownership of the land in question, which belongs to Union of india. It is clear that the petitioners have no rights, claim or title over the suit land and the DDA is fully competent to take over the built up portion for further development. The demarcation was completely peacefully. " ( 16 ) AT this stage, it would be useful to point out as to how there was controversy about the earlier demarcation report dated 29. 10. 92. In the order dated 9. 9. 94, this Court had directed the Additional District Magistrate (Land acquisition) and Deputy Commissioner (West) to provide Tatima s Field Book in respect of land in question to the Local Commissioner. There was controversy regarding reconstruction of Tatimas Field Book and the additional District Magistrate passed detailed order running almost into 16 pages on this. Some of the observations in this Order needs to be mentioned as under: "a final word regarding claim of Shri Har pal Singh S/o Pratap Singh. There was controversy regarding reconstruction of Tatimas Field Book and the additional District Magistrate passed detailed order running almost into 16 pages on this. Some of the observations in this Order needs to be mentioned as under: "a final word regarding claim of Shri Har pal Singh S/o Pratap Singh. He has proposed the Tatima s field book in accordance with the certified copy in possession and the report of Shri Khazan singh, Ex Field Kanungo. The perusal of the photocopy of certified copy which has been placed before me reveals that it is dated 28/4/94. However, Shri Har pal Singh in his statement has stated that he obtained the certified copy from copying agencies in 1992. Shri khazan Singh has also in his demarcation report dated 29/10/92 clearly mentioned that the demarcation was done according to the Tatima Field Book of the award. However the perusal of the demarcation report of Shri Mai Chand which is prior to the report of Shri khazan Singh as it is dated 19/2/91 reveals that Shri Mai Chand has observed as follows: "the map and Tatima field book of 4 parts of Khasra No. 292 are neither available in award file, nor in Patwari record and also not available in the files of Land and Building/dda due to which correct demarcation could not be done so far. "at another place Sh. Mai Chand ex kanungo has observed as follows: "farik Doyam (Har Pal Singh / Pratap singh) is building up any land as per his will by calling it Khasra No. 292/2 or 292/3 in the award no. 2202, Khasra no. 292/1,2 and 3 were left out due to prior built up and not for building up later. At that time of my own inspection on 17/6/87 only part space "c" was disputed which was newly built up at that time. The question which arises is that Tatima s sizera of Khasra No. 292 was prepared which is available nowhere. This has to be sorted out by the revenue department only. From the above extracts of the demarcation report dated 19/2/91 of sh. Mai Chand, Ex field Kanungo it is evident that the Tatima s field book of khasra No. 92 and 292 was not available on 19/2/91. This has to be sorted out by the revenue department only. From the above extracts of the demarcation report dated 19/2/91 of sh. Mai Chand, Ex field Kanungo it is evident that the Tatima s field book of khasra No. 92 and 292 was not available on 19/2/91. I have also made personal inquiries from the old revenue officials of this department and am told that the missing of Tatima s filed book from the records has become quite an issue. It is therefore a matter of inquiry that how the certified copy was obtained by Shri Har Pal Singh in 1992 or 1994 and how the demarcation was conducted by Shri Khazan Singh on the basis of Tatima s field book in 1992 when the same was nowhere available in 1991. The reappearance of Tatima s field book seems to be as mysterious as its disappearance. I have therefore not relied on the said certified copy and have reconstructed Tatima field book of Khasra no. 92 and 292 on the basis of other evidence such as the material available in award file. " ( 17 ) IN view of such a material before the learned Single Judge, filing of any objections to the demarcation report of the Local commissioner by the appellants herein would be of no consequence. Learned Single Judge rightly observed that in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, merit of the objections could not be adjudicated upon as evidence would be required. He thus rightly, in the aforesaid circumstances, relied upon the report of the local Commissioner to come to the conclusion that land in question formed part of the land acquired by the Government and is a public lands put at the disposal of the DDA and is encroached upon by the appellants herein. ( 18 ) WE, therefore, find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/ -.