IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Balwinder Singh and another Joginder Singh CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE Present: - Mr.S.S. Salar Mr.K.S. Brar, Advocate, for the respondent. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. By way of this petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for alleged wil disobedience and violation of the order dated 05.09.2024 (Annexure P passed by this Court in CWP 24.08.2024 (Annexure P 2. As the perusal of the paper book would reveal, Director Land Records, Punjab, vide an orde provide a passage to be carved out to the Singh, on the eastern middle side of Khasra No.212//12/1 of the petitioners herein. 3. Respondent Joginder Singh challenged the aforesaid order dated 26.07.2023 by approaching this Court by filing CWP IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Balwinder Singh and another Vs. Joginder Singh **** Reserved on:01.09.2026 Pronounced on:03.09.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: **** HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Mr.S.S. Salar, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.K.S. Brar, Advocate, for the respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. By way of this petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for alleged wil edience and violation of the order dated 05.09.2024 (Annexure P passed by this Court in CWP-25111-2023 in terms of compromise dated (Annexure P-2). As the perusal of the paper book would reveal, Director Land Records, Punjab, vide an order dated 26.07.2023 provide a passage to be carved out to the Tak Singh, on the eastern-northern side of Khasra No. 212 middle side of Khasra No.212//12/1 of the petitioners herein. Respondent Joginder Singh challenged the aforesaid order dated 26.07.2023 by approaching this Court by filing CWP IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-4652-2024 (O&M) . . . . Petitioners . . . . Respondent 01.09.2026 .09.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully AK GUPTA petitioners. Mr.K.S. Brar, Advocate, for the respondent. By way of this petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for alleged willful edience and violation of the order dated 05.09.2024 (Annexure P- 2023 in terms of compromise dated As the perusal of the paper book would reveal, Director Land r dated 26.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) had directed to Tak of the respondent – Joginder northern side of Khasra No. 212//11/2 min and northern middle side of Khasra No.212//12/1 of the petitioners herein. Respondent Joginder Singh challenged the aforesaid order dated 26.07.2023 by approaching this Court by filing CWP-25111-2023. During the 2024 (O&M) Petitioners . . . . Respondent By way of this petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray ful -3) 2023 in terms of compromise dated As the perusal of the paper book would reveal, Director Land directed to Joginder 2 min and northern- Respondent Joginder Singh challenged the aforesaid order dated 2023. During the VIVEK PAHWA 2026.09.03 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-4652-2024 2026:PHHC:123858 proceedings of the said writ petition, a compromise was effected between the parties, copy of which is Annexure P-2, which reads as under:- “COMPROMISE DEED This compromise deed has been executed on this 24 TH day of August, 2024 at Village Mallan Wala Janubi, Tehsil zira, District Ferozepur between: Jeginder Singh a/e Sh. Balla Singh, resident of Mallan Wala Janubi, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as the '1" Party') AND 1. Balwinder Singh 5/6 Sh. Jangir Singh, 2. Balbir Singh s/o Sh. Jagir Singh 3. Malkiat Singh and Harjeet Singh S/o Sh. Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Jagbir Singh; All residents of Mallan Wala Janubi, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as the '2nd Party'). Whereas, Shri Balwinder Singh and Malkiat Singh from the 2nd party had filed a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act for provisions of a passage. Whereas the said application was allowed, vide order dated 26.07.2023. vide this order, a passage from Khasra No.212//11/2 (0-1)and Khasra No.212//12/1 (0-7) was provided to the land of the 2nd party That the 1st party filed CWP No.25111 of 2023 to challenge the order dated 26.07.2023 attaching it as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition. Written statement was filed by the second party, with which Annexure R-2/5 was also attached. The petitioner also filed a map proposing to provide passage from Khasra No.211//24, 25, 21/2. During the hearing on 22.08.2024, the 1st and 2nd party agreed that a passage 3 karam wide shown in white colour from North-Eastern Corners to South-Eastern Corner of Khasra No 212//11/2 and to the extent of 3 karam x 3 karam from North-Eastern Corner of Khasra No.212//20, owned by the first party to give access to Khasra No.19 and other khasra numbers belonging to the 2nd Party be provided. This passage shall be recorded in the name of Jumla Mustarka Maalkan' and both the parties shall be entitled to use the same as 'Sareaam'. That the 1st and 2nd Party have further agreed that the 2nd Party shall forgo his claim in Khasra No 212//26 to the extent of 1/6th share and whenever VIVEK PAHWA 2026.09.03 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-4652-2024 2026:PHHC:123858 required by 1st Party shall execute the sale deed without any consideration except the expenses for getting sale deed executed by 1st Party on or before 11th November, 2024 after Informing each other. Similarly, both the parties shall get the passage mentioned above demarcated with their mutual consent on the same day. That the 1st and 2nd Party have also agreed that the 2 nd Party has lodged an F.I.R. No.117/2021dated 28.12.2021 under Sections 354, 323, 325, 447, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Mallan Wala, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur against 9 accused. The 2nd Party shall cooperate with the 1st party and with other 8 accused to get the F.I.R. and all subsequent proceeding arising therefrom quashed. On the basis of statement dated 30.12.2021, vide GD No.022, made by Gurmeet Kaur wife of Shri Sher Singh, R/o Kumhari Wala, a cross case under Section 452, 354, 324, 323, 148, 149 of I.P.C. was also registered against 2nd Party and other 7 accused. As above, the 1st Party shall also cooperate with 2nd Party to get the cross- case and consequential proceedings quashed. Both the parties shall make statement, wherever required including the Hon'ble High Court. That the above Writ Petition No.25111 of 2023 pending for 05.09.2024 shall be got disposed in view of terms mentioned hereinabove. The rest of the compromise shall also be got implemented in appropriate forums. The parties shall be bound by the present compromise. This compromise has been prepared in duplicate One original shall beretained by 1st Party and other original shall be retained by 2nd Party. The present compromise has been got effected between the parties without any pressure, coercion and with their own free Will and consent. 1 st Party 2 nd Party LTI JOGINDER SINGH BALWINDER SINGH SD MEHAR SINGH SD MALKIAT SINGH GURDEV SINGH HARJEET SINGH NAPINDER SINHG KULDEEP SINGH LAKHVIR SINGH KULJIT SINGH BALBIR SINGH RTI BHAJAN KAUR SHER SINGH BALWINDER KAUR AVTAR SINGH SUCHA SINGH VIVEK PAHWA 2026.09.03 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-4652-2024 2026:PHHC:123858 RTI GURMEET KAUR GURVINDER SINGH WITNESSES: 1. JASWINDER SINGH BALRAJ SINGH 2. LTI GURCHARAN SINGH” [Bold portion emphasised by this Court] 4. CWP-25111-2023 was disposed of by this Court on 05.09.2024 in terms of the aforesaid compromise. Copy of the order of this Court is Annexure P-3. 5. Alleging the violation of the aforesaid order Annexure P-3 in terms of compromise Annexure P-2, it is alleged by the petitioners that they are ready to execute the sale deed to the extent of 1/6th share of Khasra No.212//26 and even sent a legal notice to the respondent in this regard, requiring him to appear before the Sub-Registrar to enable the petitioners to execute the sale deed, but the respondent is not coming forward. It is alleged further that the respondent is also not providing the passage to him as per the compromise Annexure P-2 accepted by this Court vide order Annexure P-3. For this alleged violation on the part of the respondent, prayer has been made for initiating contempt proceedings against him. 6. During the proceedings of the present petition, efforts were made to reconcile the disputes, but the same failed. Vide an order dated 05.02.2026, this Court directed SDM, Zira, District, Ferozepur to file the compliance report after executing the order at Annexure P-3 dated 05.09.2024. Status report was filed by SDM, Zira, which prima facie indicated non-complianceby the respondent. However, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that in fact the land, which was to be transferred by the petitioners in favour of the respondent as per the compromise, was in fact not in their possession and rather, it was in possession of one Mehar Singh. 7. Mehar Singh was called in person and he disclosed that in fact the land in question, which the petitioners were required to transfer in favour of the respondent, was in his (Mehar’s Singh) possession under an exchange. Since this assertion of Mehar Singh was denied by the petitioners, this Court was constrained to appoint a Local Commissioner vide an order dated VIVEK PAHWA 2026.09.03 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-4652-2024 2026:PHHC:123858 27.05.2026. Sh. Amitoj Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner to visit the spot and file his report with respect to the nature and extent of possession of Mehar Singh over the land comprising Khasra No.212//26. The Local commissioner submitted his report dated 18.06.2026, the relevant portion of which is as under:- “5. That in Khasra Number 212//26 on the sunrise direction (Eastern side), 10 feet store/shed is built and apart from it, a place of worship is built. It is part of the residence of Mehar Singh. The photographs showing the store/shed and place of worship is appended as Annexure A-2. 6. That in Khasra Number 212//26 on the mountain direction (Northern side) a 4-feet high concrete wall is constructed and on the sunset direction (Western side), a water tank (chubacha) and a room are built. The photographs showing the 4 feet hight concrete wall and the water tank and room are appended as Annexure A-3 & Annexure A-4 respectively. 7. That in Khasra Number 212//26 beyond the aforementioned room, there is about 13 feet of open space and ahead of it is a boundary wall, and beyond that, 4 feet of space is vacant. The photograph showing the open space and wall is appended as Annexure A-5. 8. That aforementioned land in Khasra no. 212//26 (1-5) is in possession of Mehar Singh son of Channan Singh. This area is a populated residential area (Gair Mumkin Abadi). 9. That on inspection it is found that in this Khasra number the possession of Mehar Singh son of Channan Singh is to the extent of 98% i.e. approximately 28 Marlas and 3 Sarsahi. In approximately 6 Sarsahi of land, there is manure (Ruri) and in remaining area there is wall which is in the possession of Joginder Singh. It is worthwhile to mention here that there is a door and a window in the said wall which shows that beyond the wall there is a room which is not in the possession of Mehar Singh. The photographs showing the area in which manure (Ruri) is kept and the wall and the door as well as window are appended as Annexure A-6. 10. That the present report has been prepared with the assistance of Sh. Vinod Kumar, Tehsildar Zira, Sh. Surjit Singh Kanungo, and Sh. Nishan Singh Patwari Halqa who were present at the spot along with the record to determine the nature of the land. With their assistance the extent of the VIVEK PAHWA 2026.09.03 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-4652-2024 2026:PHHC:123858 possession of Mehar Singh over land comprised in Khasra No. 212//26 was ascertained. The copy of report dated 18.06.2026 furnished by the Tehsildar Zira and Revenue Officers is appended as Annexure A-7.” 8. The above said report is supported by numerous photographs annexed with the report. 9. Having considered the pleadings, the compromise entered into between the parties and the subsequent developments, this Court finds that the allegation of wilful disobedience against the respondent cannot be sustained. The order dated 05.09.2024 was passed on the basis of the compromise voluntarily entered into between the parties. The obligations contemplated under the compromise were reciprocal in nature. The second party had agreed, inter alia, to forgo its claim in Khasra No.212//26 to the extent of 1/6th share and to execute the requisite sale deed in favour of the first party without consideration, except the expenses incidental to registration, whenever required by the first party. The parties had also agreed to have the passage demarcated mutually. 10. The subsequent proceedings, however, disclose that the implementation of the aforesaid arrangement has been rendered contentious on account of the possession over Khasra No.212//26. The Local Commissioner appointed by this Court has reported, on the basis of spot inspection conducted in the presence of the concerned revenue officials, that substantial portion of the land comprised in Khasra No.212//26 is in the physical possession of Mehar Singh and that the land is substantially occupied by residential structures and other constructions. The report also records that a small portion is in possession of Joginder Singh. 11. The aforesaid report, however, is relevant only for determining the factual position existing at the spot. It does not, and indeed cannot, conclusively determine the title of the parties to Khasra No.212//26. The question as to whether the petitioners possess transferable title or a transferable share in the said khasra number, and the effect, if any, of the alleged exchange in favour of Mehar Singh, are matters, which would require VIVEK PAHWA 2026.09.03 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-4652-2024 2026:PHHC:123858 adjudication in appropriate proceedings. Such disputed questions of title and substantive rights cannot be conclusively determined in exercise of contempt jurisdiction. 12. More importantly, the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act is not intended to be invoked for securing performance of an agreement or for adjudicating disputed rights arising out of a compromise. What is required to be established before a person can be proceeded against for civil contempt is a clear, unambiguous and subsisting obligation under the order of the Court and its wilful and deliberate disobedience. Mere non-performance, particularly where the circumstances disclose a genuine dispute regarding the manner or possibility of implementation of the arrangement, would not by itself constitute contempt. 13. In the present case, the material placed on record does not establish that the respondent has deliberately or wilfully disobeyed the order dated 05.09.2024. On the contrary, the subsequent proceedings reveal that the parties have not been able to implement the compromise on account of a dispute concerning possession over Khasra No.212//26 and the consequential ability of the petitioners to perform their corresponding obligation under the compromise. The very basis on which the petitioners seek enforcement of the respondent's obligation is thus attended by disputed questions, which cannot appropriately be resolved in the present contempt proceedings. 14. It is also significant that the petitioners themselves had undertaken, under the compromise, to execute the sale deed in respect of 1/6th share in Khasra No.212//26, whenever required by the first party, and the parties had agreed to have the passage demarcated on the same day. The petitioners cannot, in contempt jurisdiction, seek enforcement of one part of a reciprocal arrangement while the corresponding obligation and the factual circumstances affecting its performance remain seriously disputed. Whether the compromise requires specific enforcement, whether the parties have duly performed or are ready to perform their respective obligations, and what VIVEK PAHWA 2026.09.03 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-4652-2024 2026:PHHC:123858 consequential relief, if any, should follow are matters, which may be agitated before the forum competent to grant such relief. 15. The Court is, therefore, not persuaded that the respondent's conduct constitutes deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the order dated 05.09.2024. The essential element of willfulness, which is indispensable for establishing civil contempt, is conspicuously absent. The contempt jurisdiction cannot be converted into a mechanism for adjudicating the disputed rights of the parties or for undertaking execution of the compromise beyond what is permissible in contempt proceedings. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that no case of wilful disobedience of the order dated 05.09.2024 is made out against the respondent. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 17. It is, however, clarified that dismissal of the contempt petition shall not preclude either party from availing such other remedy as may be available to it in law for enforcement, implementation or adjudication of the rights and obligations arising out of the compromise dated 24.08.2024. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an adjudication of the title or substantive rights of any party in respect of Khasra No.212//26. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 03.09.2026 Vivek JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Uploaded on:03.09.2026 VIVEK PAHWA 2026.09.03 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document