In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … COCP No. 552 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: September 18, 2009 Raj Kumar son of Jeet Lal .. Petitioner Versus Harvinder Singh Randhawa and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. L.N.Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.S.Riar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for respondents .. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J(Oral) As per the averments made in this petition vide judgment dated 9.8.2007 passed in RSA No. 129 of 2006, suit of the plaintiff/petitioner was decreed restraining the defendants from forcibly dispossessing him from the suit land. However, it was open to the defendant/respondents to take possession of the suit land from the petitioner in accordance with law. It is further averred that thereafter, the respondent i.e., Punjab Mandi Board, Jalandhar filed a petition under the provisions of Punjab Public Premises Act for eviction of the petitioner from the land in question which is pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate- cum-Collector, Jalandhar. According to the petitioner, on 14.3.2008, when the petitioner was ploughing his land with his Tractor, respondent Nos.1 to 5 along with certain other persons entered in the land in question and asked him to immediately leave the site and threatened him of dire consequences, if he dared to enter in the land in question again. Heated arguments ensued thereupon, between the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 5. After some time, the respondents left the spot along with other persons. In view of the serious threats as advanced by the aforesaid respondent, the petitioner submitted a complaint to the police. According to the petitioner, the respondents came again on 15.3.2008 and asked him to stop ploughing the land in question and get out of the field. However petitioner refused to oblige them. Thereafter respondents came again on the same day along with police force. The police officials told him that they had come on the spot to help the respondents to stop him from ploughing the land in question. However, the petitioner confronted the police with copy of the order dated 9.8.2007, The petitioner submitted another application to the police on that date. According to the petitioner, there was another attempt by the respondents on 16.3.2008 to evict him forcibly. However, the petitioner successfully resisted their move. Thus according to the petitioner, the aforesaid action of the respondents is in violation of the orders passed by this court is against the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2007 passed in RSA No. 129 of 2006. In response to the show cause notice issued by this court, two separate replies by way of an affidavit of Shri Harinder Singh Randhawa, Secretary, Market Committee, Jalandhar and Shri Daljeet Singh, PCS, Joint Director (Admn.) Punjab Mandi Board, Chandigarh were filed wherein the allegations levelled by the petitioner were denied and it was submitted that the Collector, Jalandhar vide his order dated 10.6.2008 had ordered the eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute under the provisions of Punjab Public Premises Act, 1971 and appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar(exercising the powers of Commissioner under the aforesaid Act) vide order dated 24.7.2008. Even Civil Revision No. 5331 of 2008 filed by the petitioner before this Court challenging the aforesaid orders was also dismissed vide order dated 30.9.2008 and thereafter, the respondents have taken the possession of the land in dispute on 12.12.2008 in execution of the orders of eviction passed by the Collector, Jalandhar on the basis of warrant of possession (Annexure R-8) issued by him and thus the respondents have not committed any disobedience of the judgment and decree passed by this court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of this contempt petition. There is no rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of respondents. It is not possible to hold that respondents have disobeyed the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2007 on the basis of alleged threats of forcible dispossession as averred by the petitioner as those facts can only be proved by leading evidence. Even according to the petitioner, he was never dispossessed when the alleged threats of forcible dispossession were given by the respondents to him . A finding fact that the petitioner is in unauthorized possession of the land in dispute has been recorded in the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2007. However, the possession of the petitioner was protected only against forcible dispossession and the respondents were free to take possession of the suit land from the petitioner in accordance with law. From the facts as narrated above, it is clear that the respondents have taken the possession of the land in dispute in accordance with law and there is no willful disobedience on their part. Even otherwise, the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2007 is executable under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code. Thus, I find that this petition is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged. September 18, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE