COCP-343 IN THE HI 202 Sher Singh Kulwinder S CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. violation of 2002, titled second appe regard to th appeal’. 2. petitioner th Singh/father (Annexure P possession b submitted possession BDPO, Blo 43-2015 -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H COCP Date o ingh Versus nder Singh Randhawa and others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. HS Dhandi, Advocate for th Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate fo Mr. Manmeet Singh Teji, AAG, for respondent No. 3. I GUPTA, J. The present contempt petitio on of order dated 06.10.2003 (Annex titled as ‘Didar Singh and another vs. appeal was admitted and it was d to the possession shall be maintaine It is, inter alia, submitted b ner that the aforesaid second appe /father of respondent No. 7 herein. V xure P-1), it had been directed tha sion be maintained during the pen that it is undisputed fact on rec of the land in question. However Block Dhilwan, District Kapurth ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-343-2015 Date of Decision: 24.02.2026 .… Petitioner .... Respondents NIDHI GUPTA e for the petitioner. cate for respondent No. 1. AAG, Punjab petition has been filed alleging Annexure P-1) passed in RSA-735- vs. Sher Singh’, whereby the said was directed that ‘status quo with tained during the pendency of the itted by learned counsel for the appeal has been filed by Didar rein. Vide order dated 06.10.2003 ed that status quo with regard to e pendency of the appeal. It is on record that the petitioner is in wever, for the last several years, the apurthala, has been harassing the ging said ith he the idar 003 d to t is s in , the the RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-343 petitioner on Administrato petitioner an Accordingly (Annexure P said persons December petitioner an served legal Singh, BDPO Gurdev Sin constrained BDPO, Dhi 02.12.2014 Kapurthala. with Sarpanc of responden officials on petitioner in planted by 06.01.2015 ( avail. It is a grave violati operation an However, th 43-2015 -2- ner on the one pretext or the other istrator and Tehsildar Kapurthala ner and threatened to dispossess him dingly, petitioner had served a leg xure P-5) upon them through his coun ersons have stopped harassment for 2012, again Bhupinder Singh, ner and tried to interfere in his posses legal notice dated 05.01.2013 (Anne , BDPO. Yet again, in August 2014, B v Singh, harassed the petitioner, t ained to serve legal notice dated 09 , Dhilwan. The petitioner had eve 2014 (Annexure P-9) to the Senio thala. However, Kulwinder Singh Ran arpanch Gurdev Singh and other Panc pondent No. 3-SHO, Police Station Ko ls on 02.01.2015 had destroyed th ner in the land in question and als d by him. The petitioner had m 2015 (Annexure P-10) before the SSP It is accordingly submitted that the violation of the order dated 06.10.200 ion and the petitioner is in possess ver, the official respondents had take other. In the year 2012, BDPO, rthala had started harassing the ss him from the land in question. legal notice dated 28.04.2012 s counsel, in pursuance to which the nt for a short while. However, in ingh, BDPO started harassing the possession. The petitioner had again (Annexure P-6) on said Bhupinder , BDPO, Dhilwan and Sarpanch ner, therefore, the petitioner was 09.08.2014 (Annexure P-7) on d even given a complaint dated Senior Superintendent of Police, gh Randhawa, BDPO in connivance r Panchayat Members with the help ion Kotwali along with other police ed the wheat crop sown by the nd also destroyed all Guava trees ad moved an application dated he SSP, Kapurthala, however, to no at the respondents have committed 10.2003 (Annexure P-1) which is in ossession of the land in question. d taken the law in their own hands PO, the . 012 the r, in the gain nder was ) on ated lice, ance help lice the rees ated o no itted is in tion. ands RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-343 and had sho accordingly, 3. Inspector H Kapurthala, 4. the submiss submits that is a grave m RSA-735-20 been passed dated 25.09 maintainable 5. 06.10.2003 se parties to the aforesaid Panchayat no party in the s liable for con 6. actual fact, t this regard, (Annexure R Panchayat O pointed out 43-2015 -3- ad shown great disrespect against th ingly, prayed that strict action may be Status report dated 23.02.2026 tor Hardip Singh, SHO, Police thala, on behalf of respondent No. 3 is Learned counsel for responden bmissions advanced by learned cou ts that the present contempt petition is rave misuse of the due process of la 2002, in which the order dated 06 assed already stands dismissed for w 25.09.2025. As such, the presen inable. Learned counsel further sub 2003 is passed in personam and, ther ties to the lis. Admittedly, the respond oresaid second appeal bearing RSA ayat nor any official of the District Ad in the said second appeal. Therefore, th for contempt of the order dated 06.10.2 Learned counsel for respondent fact, the petitioner is in illegal possess egard, learned counsel refers to xure R-1/1) passed by Sh. Balraj Sing ayat Officer-cum-Collector, Panchay d out that the Gram Panchayat, Boo inst the orders of this Court. It is ay be taken against them. .2026 filed by way of affidavit of Police Station Kotwali, District o. 3 is taken on record. ondent No. 1 vehemently opposes ed counsel for the petitioner and ition is not maintainable and in fact of law. It is firstly submitted that 06.10.2003 (Annexure P-1) had for want of prosecution vide order present contempt petition is not r submits that the order dated d, therefore, is operative upon inter espondents herein are not parties in RSA-735-2002. Neither the Gram rict Administration, Kapurthala, is a fore, the respondents cannot be held 06.10.2003 (Annexure P-1). ondent No. 1 further submits that in ossession of the land in question. In to the order dated 30.09.2015 aj Singh, District Development and anchayat Land, Kapurthala. It is t, Boot Block Dhilwan, Tehsil and It is it of trict and that had rder not ated ter s in ram is a held at in n. In 015 and t is and RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-343 District Kap others under Act, 1961 f mentioned o it was foun Panchayat w and other si was also fou amount to th order dated persons was 7. counsel for challenged b 8. despite the o land in ques 6060-2017 Rural Deve which was d dated 19.04. learned State 43-2015 -4- t Kapurthala had filed petition again under Section 7 of the Punjab Village 961 for their eviction from the land ned order dated 30.9.2015, the said p found that as per the Jamabandi ayat was the owner of the land in qu ther similarly situated persons had ill lso found that the petitioner is not p t to the Panchayat for their unauthoriz dated 30.09.2015 (Annexure R-1/1), t s was ordered to be evicted from the la On a direct Court query, it h el for the petitioner that the order da nged by the petitioner till date. Learned counsel for responden e the order dated 30.09.2015, as the p n question, the respondent-Gram Panc 2017 before this Court titled as ‘Gram Development and Panchayat Depa was disposed of by the Division Be 19.04.2017 (Annexure R-1/2), in vie d State counsel, which reads as follow “....Learned counsel for the St Saroj Aggarwal, Tehsildar, Ka being no stay by any authority passed against the private re shall be taken to take posse occupants and hand over the s Needful shall be done within a p against the present petitioner and illage Common Land (Regulations) e land in question. Vide the form said petition had been allowed; and ndi for the year 2009-10, Nagar question; and that the petitioner had illegally occupied the same. It not paying any lease or any other uthorized occupation. As such, vide , the petitioner along with other the land in question. , it has been admitted by learned der dated 30.09.2015, has not been ondent No.1 further points out that the petitioner was not vacating the Panchayat, Boot, had filed CWP- Gram Panchayat Boot vs. Director, Department, Punjab and others’; ion Bench of this Court vide order in view of the statement made by follows:- e State on instructions from Mrs. , Kapurthala submitted that there ority against the order of eviction e respondents, appropriate steps ossession from the unauthorised the same to the Gram Panchayat. n a period of four weeks....” and ons) orm and agar oner e. It ther vide ther rned een that the ctor, ; rder e by rs. re on ps ed at. RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-343 9. petitioner ha RSA-735-20 (Annexure P order dated clear that th and is merely 10. deny or dis respondent N the petitione contempt pe 11. the un-dispu dismissed as 12. 13. 24.02.2026 rishu 43-2015 -5- Learned counsel for respondent ner had previously filed COCP-244 2002, alleging violation of th xure P-1) which was dismissed as wit dated 10.04.2013. It is submitted tha that the present petition is a grave mi merely an attempt to overawe the resp At this stage, as learned counsel or dispute the above-said facts as s dent No. 1; as also borne out from th titioner submits that he may be perm pt petition. Having heard learned counsel f disputed facts as noted above, the ssed as withdrawn. Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable ndent No. 1 also points out that the 2441-2012 (Annexure R-1/3) in of the order dated 06.10.2003 as withdrawn by the petitioner vide ted that from the above facts, it is ve misuse of contempt jurisdiction e respondents. ounsel for the petitioner is unable to s as stated by learned counsel for rom the record; learned counsel for permitted to withdraw the present unsel for the parties and in view of e, the present contempt petition is any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE ned Yes/No Yes/No t the in 003 vide it is tion le to for l for sent of n is RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.