COCP-1294 105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Des Raj and ors. Amit Kumar, DC SBS Nagar and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : HARKESH MANUJA, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 of India, respondents on account of alleged willful non dated 06.10.2016 relevant part thereof is extracted hereunder: 1294-2018 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. Date of Decision: Des Raj and ors. VERSUS Amit Kumar, DC SBS Nagar and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present : Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab Ms. Nidhi Sinha, DDPO, SBS Nagar in person. Mr.Vipan Kumar, BDPO, Balachaur, Mr. Ankurjeet Singh, DC, SBS Nagar, through VC Mr.Inderpal Singh, SDM, SBS Nagar, through VC Ms.Sukhbir Kaur, Tehsildar, Balachaur through VC **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, proceedings are sought to be initiated against the respondents on account of alleged willful non 06.10.2016 passed by this Court in relevant part thereof is extracted hereunder: “17. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant cannot be said to be in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land especially when nothing has been brought on record which indicate that the appellant is not eligible for the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 1294-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.07.2025 ...Petitioners Amit Kumar, DC SBS Nagar and ors. ...Respondent HARKESH MANUJA r. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab with Ms. Nidhi Sinha, DDPO, SBS Nagar in person. , Balachaur, in person. Mr. Ankurjeet Singh, DC, SBS Nagar, through VC Mr.Inderpal Singh, SDM, SBS Nagar, through VC Ms.Sukhbir Kaur, Tehsildar, Balachaur through VC By way of present petition filed under Section 12 of the read with Article 215 of the Constitution proceedings are sought to be initiated against the respondents on account of alleged willful non-compliance of order passed by this Court in FAO-8027-2015. Th relevant part thereof is extracted hereunder:- In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant cannot be said to be in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land especially when nothing has been brought on record which would indicate that the appellant is not eligible for the ...Respondents By way of present petition filed under Section 12 of the read with Article 215 of the Constitution proceedings are sought to be initiated against the compliance of order . The In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant cannot be said to be in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land especially when nothing would indicate that the appellant is not eligible for the SANJAY GUPTA 2025.07.09 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-1294 1294-2018 (O&M) [2] benefit of the Policy/Scheme dated 14.08.2008 framed by the Government of Punjab which has been implemented. The competent authorities because of their lack luster and casual approach have not give the aforesaid Policy/Scheme. The Policy/Scheme dated 14.08.2008 cannot be frustrated because of the officials as the intent and purpose was to give the downtrodden their democratic constitutional right i.e. due representation in the Gram P be added here that even respondent No. 2 is having his house on the Gram Panchayat land and is similarly placed as the appellant. Going by the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 01.10.2008 (Ex. R eligible Sched community would render the village without any Gram Panchayat at all, which is contrary to the spirit of the Policy/Scheme dated 14.08.2008. 18. Keeping in view the above observations of this Court, it is held that the appellant and similarly placed villagers, who have been found to be eligible for issuance of the certificate of ownership, are not in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land. For no fault of theirs, they cannot be penalized and, therefore, the process and formalities having been completed in the year 2011, the competent authority should have issued the ownership certificates to not only the appellant but other similarly situated persons, who have been found eligible as per the Policy/Scheme dated 14.08.2008 issuance of the certificate of ownership. Let the benefit of the Policy/Scheme dated 14.08.2008 framed by the Government of Punjab which has been implemented. The competent authorities because of their lack luster and casual approach have not given full effect to the aforesaid Policy/Scheme. The Policy/Scheme dated 14.08.2008 cannot be frustrated because of the officials as the intent and purpose was to give the downtrodden their democratic constitutional right i.e. due representation in the Gram Panchayat. It may be added here that even respondent No. 2 is having his house on the Gram Panchayat land and is similarly placed as the appellant. Going by the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 01.10.2008 (Ex. R-6) giving details of the eligible Scheduled Caste and Bazigar community would render the village without any Gram Panchayat at all, which is contrary to the spirit of the Policy/Scheme dated 14.08.2008. Keeping in view the above observations of this Court, it is held that the appellant and other similarly placed villagers, who have been found to be eligible for issuance of the certificate of ownership, are not in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land. For no fault of theirs, they cannot be penalized and, therefore, the ormalities having been completed in the year 2011, the competent authority should have issued the ownership certificates to not only the appellant but other similarly situated persons, who have been found eligible as per the Policy/Scheme dated 14.08.2008 for issuance of the certificate of ownership. Let the benefit of the Policy/Scheme dated 14.08.2008 framed by the Government of Punjab which has been implemented. The competent authorities because of their lack luster and n full effect to the aforesaid Policy/Scheme. The Policy/Scheme dated 14.08.2008 cannot be frustrated because of the officials as the intent and purpose was to give the downtrodden their democratic constitutional right i.e. due anchayat. It may be added here that even respondent No. 2 is having his house on the Gram Panchayat land and is similarly placed as the appellant. Going by the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 6) giving details of the uled Caste and Bazigar community would render the village without any Gram Panchayat at all, which is contrary to the Keeping in view the above observations of this other similarly placed villagers, who have been found to be eligible for issuance of the certificate of ownership, are not in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land. For no fault of theirs, they cannot be penalized and, therefore, the ormalities having been completed in the year 2011, the competent authority should have issued the ownership certificates to not only the appellant but other similarly situated persons, who have been found eligible for issuance of the certificate of ownership. Let the SANJAY GUPTA 2025.07.09 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-1294 2. Deputy Commissioner, SBS Nagar has joined th through Video Conferencing and submits that the petitioners are not landless workers and thus are not entitled for free of cost land by the Gram Panchayat. 3. passed in the present c disposed of. 4. 5. remedy, if any, as per law. 6. stand disposed of 08.07.2025 sanjay 1294-2018 (O&M) [3] competent authority issue the ownership certificates to all eligible persons including the appellant and respondent No. 2 within a period of six weeks' from today. 19. In view of the above, the finding by the SubDivisional Magistrate Tribunal, Nawan Shahar in the impugned order dated 09-11-2015 is set aside and the election petition, as preferred by respondent No. 2 Arjun Dass, stands dismissed. Election of the appellant as Sa Tehsil Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, held on 03.07.2013 is hereby upheld. The appeal stands allowed.” Today, during the course of hearing, Mr.Ankurjeet Singh, Deputy Commissioner, SBS Nagar has joined th through Video Conferencing and submits that the petitioners are not landless workers and thus are not entitled for free of cost land by the Gram Panchayat. In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt petition and thus the same is disposed of. Rule discharged. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to avail their remedy, if any, as per law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if an stand disposed of. .2025 ( Whether speaking/reasoned ? Whether Reportable ? competent authority issue the ownership certificates to all eligible persons including the appellant and respondent No. 2 within a period of six weeks' from today. In view of the above, the findings, as recorded by the SubDivisional Magistrate-cum-Election Tribunal, Nawan Shahar in the impugned order 2015 is set aside and the election petition, as preferred by respondent No. 2 Arjun Dass, stands dismissed. Election of the appellant as Sarpanch of Village Haddon Bet, Tehsil Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, held on 03.07.2013 is hereby The appeal stands allowed.” Today, during the course of hearing, Mr.Ankurjeet Singh, Deputy Commissioner, SBS Nagar has joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing and submits that the petitioners are not landless workers and thus are not entitled for free of cost land by the In view of the above, no further orders are required to be ontempt petition and thus the same is However, the petitioners would be at liberty to avail their Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No Yes/No competent authority issue the ownership certificates to all eligible persons including the appellant and respondent No. 2 within a period s, as recorded Election Tribunal, Nawan Shahar in the impugned order 2015 is set aside and the election petition, as preferred by respondent No. 2- Arjun Dass, stands dismissed. Election of the rpanch of Village Haddon Bet, Tehsil Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, held on 03.07.2013 is hereby Today, during the course of hearing, Mr.Ankurjeet Singh, e proceedings through Video Conferencing and submits that the petitioners are not landless workers and thus are not entitled for free of cost land by the In view of the above, no further orders are required to be ontempt petition and thus the same is However, the petitioners would be at liberty to avail their y, shall also SANJAY GUPTA 2025.07.09 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document