IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 148 COCP-1242-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 10.09.2026 Raj Kumar Saini … Petitioner Versus Chander Shekhar Khare and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present:- Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. ***** DEEPAK MANCHANDA , J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of Constitution of India for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for wilful disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 04.01.2001 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Court in CWP-5501-1998 titled ‘Sh. Devi Ram and others Versus State of Haryana through Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Urban Estate Department, Civil Secretariat, Haryana, Chandigarh and others’. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents, while referring to the speaking order dated 13.05.2002 (Annexure P-2), submits that the directions contained in the judgment dated 04.01.2001 (Annexure P-1) have already been complied with by passing the said speaking order way back in the year 2002. He further submits that insofar as the direction contained at serial No. 5 of the aforesaid PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.09.11 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment COCP-1242-2026 (O&M) ( 2 ) judgment is concerned, the petitioner was never dispossessed from the land in question during the interregnum between the passing of the judgment dated 04.01.2001 and the speaking order dated 13.05.2002. 3. A perusal of the pleadings reveals that the present contempt petition has been instituted after an inordinate delay of more than 24 years alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 04.01.2001 passed by the Writ Court. This Court is of the considered view that no case of contempt is made out. Rather, the present proceedings amount to a misuse of the process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that a fresh communication has been issued on the same issue, giving rise to an independent cause of action. 5. In view of the above, nothing survives for adjudication in the present contempt petition. Accordingly, the same is disposed of. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail such alternative and efficacious remedy as may be available to him in accordance with law against any subsequent cause of action. 6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 10.09.2026 ( DEEPAK MANCHANDA ) Pankaj JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2026.09.11 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment