COCP-4869 IN THE HI 104+216 Sikander Sin Tilak Raj an CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP CM-7332-C respondents COCP-4869 1. violation of Court in CW Commission next date of 2. petitioners th petition, the nuisance by 4869-2025 (O&M) -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H COCP Date o er Singh and another Versus Raj and others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Sushant Mahajan and Mr. Vinay Kumar Mahajan, Ad for the petitioners. Mr. Raghav Agnihotri, Advocat I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CII-2026 Application is allowed; as pray Reply filed along with the dents No. 1 to 4 is taken on record. 4869-2025 The present contempt petitio on of order dated 10.01.2023 (Annex CWP-457-2023, titled as ‘Tilak Ra issioner (Appeals) and others’ wherei e of hearing, status quo with respect It is, inter alia, submitted b ners that despite grant of status quo n, the respondents are passing their ce by spreading dung; and at tim ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-4869-2025 Date of Decision: 06.05.2026 .… Petitioners .... Respondents NIDHI GUPTA an, Advocates dvocate for the respondents. s prayed for. h the application on behalf of petition has been filed alleging (Annexure P-1) passed by the Writ lak Raj and others vs. The Financial wherein it was directed that ‘till the pect to possession be maintained’. itted by learned counsel for the quo order in the above said writ their cattle on the said land creating at times, causing fear among the of ging Writ cial he the writ the RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.07 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-4869 devotees, the is submitted religious cer continuous causing inco acts of the submitted th of the status 3. several repr necessary ac prayed that deliberate an 4. opposes the submits tha aforesaid CW petition was and carried submitted th over the tem had been ille petitioners h their name t part of the l sheds stood 4869-2025 (O&M) -2- es, thereby discouraging and preventin mitted that on the said land, the temple us ceremonies i.e. Pooja, Hawan, Lan uous act of the respondents of unleash g inconvenience to the temple and vill f the respondents are evident from pho tted that therefore, the said action of atus quo order dated 10.01.2023 (An Learned counsel submits that l representations and complaints to ary action in this regard, however, t that proper action be taken agai rate and wilful violation of order dated Per Contra, learned counsel fo es the submissions of learned coun ts that the respondents are the wri aid CWP-457-2023. Grievance of the n was that the contempt petitioners ha arried out partition thereof without n tted that the contempt petitioners had he temple land. In fact, even some pr en illegally encroached upon and take ners herein with mala fide intentions h ame the common village land belong f the land of the respondents herein w stood constructed was also wrongl eventing them to visit the temple. It temple organizes and conduct some , Langar etc. However, due to the nleashing their cattle on the land is nd villagers. The said contemptuous m photographs (Annexure P-2). It is f the respondent is in violation 23 (Annexure P-1). that the petitioners have also made nts to the Police Officers to take ever, to no avail. It is accordingly against the respondents for the r dated 10.01.2023 (Annexure P-1). sel for the respondents vehemently d counsel for the petitioners and e writ petitioners who had filed of the respondents in the said writ ners had taken village common land hout notice to other villagers. It is rs had also made an attempt to take e private land of the respondents d taken over by the petitioners. The tions had managed to get allotted in belonging to the Mandir. Even the rein where rooms, sheds and cattle wrongly allotted in favour of the It ome the d is ous It is tion ade take ngly the ntly and filed writ land It is take ents The d in the attle the RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.07 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-4869 petitioners. T allotted to th co-sharers the responde Financial Co petition was aforesaid wr dated 10.01. respondents. 5. small parcel wilful disobe as per comm passed throu day; howeve the possessi respondents possession o cognizance o the petitione status quo respondents. the responde petition. 6. I have heard 4869-2025 (O&M) -3- ners. The Rasta that led to the land of d to the present petitioners. The respon rers had challenged the said partition pondents and other co-villagers by wa ial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab n was dismissed against which the aid writ petition (CWP-457-2023) in 10.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) came to dents. It is, therefore, submitted that parcel of land which has been in poss disobedience is made out against the common village practice of all cattle through common Rasta to graze in th owever, the same in no manner amou ossession of the petitioners. Learne dents in no manner wilfully or d sion of the petitioners. It is submit ance of the unlawful partition and en titioners over the land in question tha order dated 10.01.2023 (Annexur dents. As such, there is no question o spondents. It is accordingly, prayed No other argument is raised on heard learned counsel for the parties nd of many co-sharers was wrongly pondents herein along with other tition wrongfully carried out behind by way of filing revision before the unjab. However, the said revision the respondents had preferred the in which the status quo order me to be passed in favour of the that as their cattle sheds are in a n possession of the respondents, no st them. It is further submitted that attle owners, the cattle may have e in the forest or pastures during the amounts to wilful interference with Learned counsel submits that the or deliberately entered into the submitted that it was only taking and ensuing wrongful possession of ion that the Writ Court had granted nexure P-1) in favour of the present stion of violating the said order by rayed for dismissal of the present ed on behalf of either of the parties. parties and perused the case file in ngly ther hind the sion the rder in a , no that ave the with the the king n of nted sent r by sent ties. le in RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.07 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-4869 detail. I find the petitione 7. (Annexure P allegation m sometime pa the possessi dispute. Ho petitioners t needless to s 8. laid down by 4869-2025 (O&M) -4- I find no merit in the submissions adv titioner. No wilful disobedience of statu xure P-1) as alleged is made out agai tion made by the petitioners is tha ime passes through temple premises th ssession of the petitioners and othe . However, it is not disputed by ners that there is a common Rast ss to say, is for the use of all villagers. In these circumstances, referenc wn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to (1) Contempt is not a substi In Niaz Mohammad v. State of the Hon’ble Apex Court held t judgment have been substan residual grievance must be proceedings; contempt jurisd “enforcement of monetary or ot bona fide compliance. (2) Wilful and deliberate d proved. In Kapildeo Prasad Sa SCC 569, the Hon’ble Cou contempt it must be shown t merely accidental or due to ina ns advanced by learned counsel for status quo order dated 10.01.2023 against the respondents. The only is that cattle of the respondents ises thereby causing disturbance to d other devotees over the land in d by the learned counsel for the Rasta on the said land which, lagers. eference may be made to the law as urt to the effect that: ubstitute for execution or appeal. te of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 332, held that where the directions of a substantially complied with, any t be worked out in appropriate jurisdiction is not meant for y or other civil rights” when there is te disobedience must be clearly d Sah v. State of Bihar, (1999) 7 Court explained that for civil own that the disobedience is not to inability or misunderstanding; if l for 023 only ents to d in the w as al. of a any riate for re is rly ) 7 civil not g; if RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.07 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-4869 9. aspect, prese 10. 11. 06.05.2026 rishu 4869-2025 (O&M) -5- there is any genuine doubt abou compliance is reasonably arguab (3) Contempt cannot enlarg In Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. T SCC 352, and Anil Ratan Sark SCC 21, it has been repeatedly Court, in contempt, may not rights or directions which are n cannot, under the guise of conte which it failed to secure in the m (4) Standard of proof akin Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme C quasi-criminal jurisdiction whe on clear, cogent and unimpe disobedience. Thus, keeping in view the ab , present Contempt Petition is hereby Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable bt about the scope of the order or if arguable, contempt will not lie. large or vary the original order. l v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5 Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 atedly emphasised that the Hon’ble y not read into the original order h are not expressly granted; a party f contempt, obtain substantive relief n the main proceeding. kin to criminal proceedings. In ion v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 reme Court described contempt as a n where findings of guilt must rest nimpeachable evidence of wilful the above noted factual and legal ereby dismissed. any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE ned Yes/No Yes/No or if er. ) 5 ) 4 ’ble rder arty elief In 11 as a rest egal RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.07 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.