Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mann Singh And Others vs R.S. Khatra And Others on 12 July, 2010

Author: Hemant Gupta

Bench: Hemant Gupta

C.O.C.P. No.1937 of 2009(O&M)                                     1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH


                                  Date of Decision : 12.07.2010
                                  C.O.C.P. No.1937 of 2009(O&M)

Mann Singh and others
                                              ......Petitioners

                             Versus

R.S. Khatra and others
                                              ......Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Present:   Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate,
           for the petitioners.

           Mr. S.S. Sahu, A.A.G. Punjab,
           for respondents No.1 to 4, 7 and 8.

           Mr. Kulbir Singh, Advocate,
           for respondent No.5.

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)

The petitioners have filed the present contempt petition for alleged disobeyance of the order passed by this Court on 18.05.2009 in Civil Writ Petition No.12178 of 2007. This Court had directed that each of the petitioners would be entitled to get possession of their land as per their respective shares vide the aforesaid order, the action of the Panchayat to lease the land was set-aside, in view of earlier order passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat initiating action against the petitioners under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

The order passed by this Court has set-aside the action of the Gram Panchayat in leasing out the property. The petitioners C.O.C.P. No.1937 of 2009(O&M) 2 are entitled to possession in terms of orders passed by this Court, but such possession has to be taken by taking recourse to such remedy as may be available to them to recover possession from the Gram Panchayat. But it cannot be said that with the decision of the writ petition, the petitioners are entitled to possession of the subject land in a contempt petition.

In view of the said fact, I do not find any ground to continue with the present contempt proceedings. The contempt petition is dismissed.

Rule is discharged.

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 12.07.2010 neetu