IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (207) COCP-140-2018 Decided on : 19.08.2025 Ram Karan ……Petitioner Versus Suman Kadyan, Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Block Shehzadpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala & others ……Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr.Rajender Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana. Mr.Fateh Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.Satyaveer Singh, Advocate Mr.Abhyudaya Paliwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J. (Oral) 1. The present contempt petition has been filed for intentional disobedience of the order dated 28.07.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed in CWP- 16648-2017 titled Ram Karan Vs. State of Haryana & others. 2. The said order is reproduced as under: “The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of Gram Panchayat for the construction of a Temple in his village. It is alleged that user of the Gram Panchayat land has been changed without proper resolution and without following the prescribed procedure. A complaint for preventing the misuse of Gram Panchayat land has also been made by the petitioner, a copy of which is appended as Annexure P-6. The writ petition is thus disposed of without expressing any views on merits, with a direction to respondent No.4 to look into the said complaint and if need be, take necessary action in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.” 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that in compliance of the SAILESH RANJAN order dated 28.07.2017, alongwith other affidavits, latest affidavit dated 2025.08.25 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (207) COCP-140-2018 -2- 12.12.2024 has been filed by Shri Sushil Mangla, Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Block Shahzadpur, District Ambala. Relevant portions of the affidavit are reproduced as under: “4. That the contents of para Nos.4 to 7 of the petition are wrong, incorrect and hence denied. The respondent no.1 after receiving the certified copy of the order demanded the demarcation report of the above said khasra numbers from the petitioner so that necessary action be taken against the encroachers but no demarcation report was submitted by the petitioner till today. Therefore, no action could be taken on the oral statement of the petitioner as the pucca houses are built on the above said khasra numbers since long ago. Now, demarcation of khasra no. 102, 104, 105, 110, 125, 126, 128, 130, 132/2, 132, 134, 135, 136 and 195/1 have been conducted by the Field Kanugo, Shahzadpur on the application of BDPO, Shahzadpur, Distt. Ambala and petition under Section 7 PVCL Act has already been filed against the encroachers before the Ld. AC 1ª Grade, Naraingarh, DistrictAmbala which is now pending for 17.12.2024. 5) That the contents of para No. 8 of the petition are matter of record. The respondent no. 1 personally looked in to the matter and visited the village many times but no new construction was found on the spot and there exists already constructed houses since long ago and in khasra no. 132. No new construction of Mandir was going on and BC Chaupal and Mandir was already constructed since long ago and in khasra no. 133/2 tubewell was reinstalled by the Gram Panchayat for the use of public at large as the previous tubewell bore was failed. 4. In view of the above, contempt is purged and rule stands discharged. 5. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) August 19, 2025 JUDGE sailesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SAILESH RANJAN 2025.08.25 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document