COCP No.380 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.380 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: December 14, 2009. Jagdev Singh & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. Sukhdeep Singh Kamboj ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for Shri R.S. Modi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Attariwala, Advocate, for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): A request has been made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners for adjournment. However, keeping in view the fact that on 6.5.2009 and on 21.8.2009, no one was present on behalf of the petitioners and on 1.9.2009 again, the case was adjourned on request, request for adjournment is rejected. This order shall dispose of COCP Nos.380, 481 and 484 of 2009 as a common question of law arising out of the same fact have been raised in these petitions. However, the facts are being culled out from COCP No.380 of 2009. It is the case of the petitioners that till the year 1998 in the column of ownership of the land in dispute in the revenue record remained in the name of Jumla MalkanHasab Rasad Khewat, showing the ownership COCP No.380 of 2009 -: 2 :- of proprietary body of the village. However, without notice to the proprietors and at their back aforesaid entries qua the land in dispute were changed vide order dated 15.12.1998 and mutations were sanctioned in favour of the respondent (Nagar Panchayat, Dirba). The respondent got changed the entries in the revenue records illegally and with the connivance of the officials of the revenue Department and filed a case before the Collector, Sunam for possession of land which was allowed vide order dated 29.6.2006. Appeal filed against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Sangrur vide his order dated 19.2.2007. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the petitioners along with others filed CWP No.12976 of 2007 alleging therein that they were in possession of the land in dispute for the last more than 40 years and the aforesaid land was described as Mushtarka Malkan in the revenue record. It was prayed that the impugned orders, including the entries in the revenue record vide Annexure P-10, be quashed and respondents be further directed to change the mutation of the land in the column of ownership. While issuing notice of motion vide order dated 20.8.2007, this Court ordered that operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed. The present contempt petitions have been filed by the petitioners alleging that the aforesaid order dated 20.8.2007 has been violated by the respondent as a fresh petition has been filed before Collector, Sunam for getting possession of the land in dispute from the petitioners, despite the fact that this court has stayed the operation of the impugned orders and, therefore, they are guilty of committing contempt. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, reply COCP No.380 of 2009 -: 3 :- has been filed on behalf of the Nagar Panchayat, Dirba through the respondent wherein it has been submitted that the aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioners was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6.5.2009 by passing the following order:- “During the course of arguments, it is found that mutation entry in favour of the Panchayat done on 15.12.1998 has not been challenged so far. The decision in favour of Panchayat is made on the basis of this mutation entry. Counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition to challenge the said stray entry, which has been taken into consideration to pass the impugned order against the petitioners. Counsel also seeks liberty to challenge order dated 15.12.1998. Dismissed as withdrawn.” It has been further submitted in this reply that in fact in the suit for possession filed by the respondent, the Collector, Sunam vide his order dated 27.3.2009 noticing the order dated 20.8.2007 had passed an order adjourning the aforesaid case sine die in view of the order dated 20.8.2007 passed by this Court. It was submitted on the basis of the aforesaid facts that there was no willful disobedience on the part of the respondent and therefore, the present contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. I have perused the pleading and heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. I find that during the course of arguments on 6.5.2009 in CWP No.12796 of 2007, the court has noticed that the alleged mutation entry in COCP No.380 of 2009 -: 4 :- favour of the Panchayat, which was done on 15.12.1998, was not challenged by the petitioners at any stage and thereafter the petitioners sought permission of this court to withdraw the writ petition to enable them to challenge the aforesaid mutation entry which was taken into consideration while passing the impugned orders in the writ petition and in view of the aforesaid permission sought, the writ petition was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn. In view of the fact that the main writ petition was itself dismissed as withdrawn on the request of the petitioners to enable them to challenge the mutation dated 15.12.1998 and the fact that Collector, Sunam vide his order dated 27.3.2009 has adjourned the case sine-die, I find no reason to proceed further in these petitions. Dismissed. Rule discharged. December 14, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge