COCP-4754 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 111 Satinder Singh Vijay Kumar Chopra and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. disobedience of the order dated Court in CWP PWD (B&R) Punjab Chandigarh and follows:- 2. 3. years of the passing of order dated 4754-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP Date of Decision: 1 Satinder Singh Versus Vijay Kumar Chopra and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Sidharth Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manmeet Singh Teji, AAG, Punjab. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 19.01.2017 (Annexure P CWP-6275-2015 titled as ‘Shingara PWD (B&R) Punjab Chandigarh and others “Resultantly, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by imposing cost of `1,00,000/ to enure benefit of the aforementioned order of mine to all other persons who has not approached to this Court. persons if approach the Chief Engineer for payment of compensation assessed in view of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the aforementioned exercise be done as expeditiou within a period of 10 months but since petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court as his valuable right has been taken, compensation by way of cost of `1,00,000/ been imposed on the respondent(s) to be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Heard. First and foremost a contempt petition cannot lie after years of the passing of order dated 19.01.2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-4754-2025 Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 .… Petitioner .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Sidharth Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manmeet Singh Teji, AAG, Punjab. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging willful 19.01.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Shingara Singh vs. Chief Engineer others’, whereby it was directed as Resultantly, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by imposing cost of `1,00,000/-. In order to enure benefit of the aforementioned order of mine to all other persons who has not approached to this Court. All the persons if approach the Chief Engineer for payment of compensation assessed in view of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the aforementioned exercise be done as expeditiously as possible within a period of 10 months but since petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court as his valuable right has been taken, compensation by way of cost of `1,00,000/- has been imposed on the respondent(s) to be paid to the r within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.” First and foremost a contempt petition cannot lie after 08 19.01.2017. As per Section 20 of the The present contempt petition has been filed alleging willful passed by this Chief Engineer as directed as Resultantly, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the . In order to enure benefit of the aforementioned order of mine to all All the persons if approach the Chief Engineer for payment of compensation assessed in view of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the sly as possible within a period of 10 months but since petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court as his valuable right has has been imposed on the respondent(s) to be paid to the r within a period of one month from the date of . As per Section 20 of the RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.18 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-4754 Contempt of Court contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.’ belated stage in respect of order dated 4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Law Finder Doc Id # 2618555 5. maintainable. 6. petition stands 7. 8. 17.09.2025 rishu 4754-2025 -2- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ‘No Court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.’ Thus, a contempt petition cannot be en belated stage in respect of order dated 19.01.2017 I find support in my view from a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2618555 wherein it is held that: “Delay in filing a contempt petition should be adequately justified, and the court must adhere to the limitation period stipulated under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section for actions for contempt - allowing a review petition without adhering to the limitation period was erroneous - The contempt petition was barred by limitation as it was filed more than five years after the order, and no sufficient cause for delay was shown "continuing wrong" must be adequately pleaded and established to overcome the limitation bar.” Clearly therefore, the present conte maintainable. Thus, keeping in view the above said facts, the present petition stands Dismissed. Rule is discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. .09.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable No Court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have Thus, a contempt petition cannot be entertained at this 19.01.2017. I find support in my view from a recent judgment of the S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah (SC) : wherein it is held that:- Delay in filing a contempt petition should be adequately justified, and the court must adhere to the limitation period stipulated under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 20 Limitation The High Court's judgment allowing a review petition without adhering to the limitation The contempt petition was barred by ion as it was filed more than five years after the order, and no sufficient cause for delay was shown - The concept of "continuing wrong" must be adequately pleaded and established to overcome the limitation bar.” Clearly therefore, the present contempt petition is not Thus, keeping in view the above said facts, the present Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No No Court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have tertained at this I find support in my view from a recent judgment of the S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah (SC) : Delay in filing a contempt petition should be adequately justified, and the court must adhere to the limitation period Limitation The High Court's judgment allowing a review petition without adhering to the limitation The contempt petition was barred by ion as it was filed more than five years after the order, The concept of "continuing wrong" must be adequately pleaded and mpt petition is not Thus, keeping in view the above said facts, the present RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.18 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.