IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 110 COCP-3259-2026 Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 Dharambir ...Petitioner Versus Manish Rehdu, Secretary, MC Kharkhoda, Sonipat ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:- Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for alleged wilful disobedience of order dated 21.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-10131-2024, titled as ‘Renu Devi vs. State of Haryana and others’. The operative part of the said order reads as under:- “Precise submission made by learned Senior counsel is that the petitioner is in possession of the property in dispute since the time of her forefathers. She submits that this land was under the Gram Panchayat however, later on, it is taken over by the respondent-MC. It is submitted that as is evident from the record, the land falls in Laal Dora which is Abadi deh. To substantiate her arguments, she has drawn the attention of this Court to the Jamabandi for the year 2013-14. She submits that without giving any findings on the same, the respondents-authorities have passed the order of eviction against the petitioner which is unsustainable in the eyes of law. HARISH KUMAR 2026.07.20 20:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment COCP-3259-2026 (2) Notice of motion for 05.11.2024. On asking of the Court, Ms. Upasana Dhawan, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State. Status quo as on date be maintained till the next date of hearing.” 2. On a query put by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not a party to the above litigation. Counsel for the petitioner is also not in a position to deny that the status quo order, passed in the said case, was premised upon the positive assertion noticed by the Court that the petitioner is in possession of the property in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further failed to show from the record that the said petitioner has since been dispossessed or that the petitioner can avail benefit of an order in-personam, passed in someone else’s case. 3. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed with costs for wasting the precious time of the Court. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition. 5. Dismissed as withdrawn. ( VIKAS SURI ) July 20, 2026 JUDGE harish Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No HARISH KUMAR 2026.07.20 20:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment