IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 760 of 1999 Date of Decision: July 21, 2011 Azad Singh ….Petitioner Versus Smt. Santosh and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes Present: None. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) I have gone through the record. The brief facts of the present case are that petitioner had filed a suit for declaration along with application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. in the Civil Court, Sonepat and the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sonepat, vide order dated 11.06.1997 restrained the Gram Panchayat from interfering in peaceful COCP No. 760 of 1999 possession of plaintiff / petitioner. The operative part of the order is as under:- “So in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that plaintiffs have been able to make out a prima facie case in their favour as they have been able to show their prima facie possession over the suit property. Balance of convenience also lies in their favour and shall suffer an irreparable loss, if they are ejected from the suit land forcibly and illegally. Accordingly, the application is accepted. The defendants are hereby restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property except in due course of law till the final disposal of the suit.” Aggrieved from the order dated 11.06.1997, the Gram Panchayat – defendant filed an appeal before the District Judge, Sonepat and vide order dated 06.08.1998, learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, dismissed the same. Against the order dated 06.08.1998, Gram panchayat – respondent filed a revision petition No. 3465 of 1998 before this Court and while issuing the notice of motion, this Court vide order dated 16.11.1998 ordered that parties shall maintain status quo. The allegation of the petitioner is that the petitioner and his brother have been enjoying the peaceful 2 COCP No. 760 of 1999 possession over the land in dispute and on 25.05.1999, Smt. Santosh, Sarpanch along with some other persons in the connivance of SHO, Police Station Saddar, Ganour came and attacked on the petitioner and damaged the tyres of the tractors with Barchas and started digging the earth of the land in dispute. The respondents on the instance of Sarpanch, Panches and in connivance with the SHO has now removed the earth and have intentionally and willfully interfered in the peaceful possession of the petitioner and thus, violated the orders of this Court. In reply, respondent No.1, Smt. Santosh, has submitted that petitioner and his brothers are not in possession of the land in dispute and they are trying to take the unauthorized possession of land. The Gram Panchayat is owner of land in dispute. It is further submitted that at the time of passing of the order of status quo by this Court, the land was vacant and the petitioner and his brothers want to take forcible possession which the Panchayat objected in view of the High Court order. From the reply of the respondent, it is clear that the gram panchayat is the owner of the land in dispute and under the garb of the status quo order passed by this Court, the petitioner and his brothers tried to take forcible possession of the panchayat land. The averments pleaded in the petition have been controverted by the respondent by way 3 COCP No. 760 of 1999 of reply. No material has been placed on record to show that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land and after passing of the status quo order by this Court, the respondents along with others tried to take forcible possession of the disputed land. The ultimate question of possession can only be decided in the civil suit pending adjudication. It would not be fair for this Court to record the possession of either party in the contempt proceedings. If in a suit pending adjudication Court finds that plaintiffs were dispossessed in violation of status quo order status quo ante can be directed. Question of possession is disputed question of fact which need not be answered in contempt proceedings. Therefore, I am not inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Present petition stands dismissed and notice served on the respondents stands discharged. July 21, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 4