C.A.C.P. No. 4 of 2001 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.A.C.P. No. 4 of 2001(O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 31.8.2009 Dinesh Yadav, Estate Officer, Haryana Urban ..........Appellant Development Authority, Sector 12, Faridabad Versus Ramjee Lal & Anr. ..........Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.M. Punchhi, Advocate for the respondents. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge holding the appellant guilty of contempt for willfully disobeying decree of civil Court dated 24.2.1997 in suit No. 111/7.12.1993 titled Ramjee Lal & Anr. Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad, affirmed in appeal, being civil appeal No. 58 of 10.4.1997 decided on 15.10.1997 declaring the respondents to be owners in possession of land measuring 2 kanals, comprised in khasra nos. 24/3 (0- 8) and 25/3 (1-12) as per jamabandi for the year 1987-88. 2. The respondents filed contempt petition on 7.8.2000 alleging that in spite of decree dated 24.2.1997 as affirmed by appellate Court on 15.10.1997, they were forcibly dispossessed on 31.7.2000. The petition was contested and after considering the rival contentions, the learned C.A.C.P. No. 4 of 2001 (O&M) (2) Single Judge held as under:- “In my considered view, in the judgments rendered by the two courts, referred to above, the controversy between the parties was settled and it came to be declared that the petitioners were in possession of the land bearing khasra nos. 24/3 and 25/3 (indicated in the site plan attached with the plaint) and that the petitioners were not in possession of the land belonging to the HUDA bearing khasra nos. 16, 17, 24/1 and 25/1. The said determination was final and binding on the parties. No party to a judicial proceedings can be permitted to assert, after the proceedings have attained finality, that the decision rendered is not correct. In so far as the present controversy is concerned, the specific plea raised by the respondents before the civil courts to the effect that in the garb of being in possession of khasra nos. 24/3 and 25/3, the petitioners had encroached upon the land belonging to the HUDA situated in khasra nos. 16, 17, 24/1 and 25/1, had been rejected. It was concluded by the Courts that the possession of the petitioners and the constructions made by them were on khasra nos. 24/3 and 25/3. And, after arriving at the said conclusion the respondents were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners, or from disturbed their possession or, from ousting them forcibly. Yet, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad, continued to assert that the petitioners were not in possession of khasra nos. 24/3 and 25/3 and that their construction was not C.A.C.P. No. 4 of 2001 (O&M) (3) over the land bearing khasra nos. 24/3 and 25/3. He continued to assert that the petitioners were actually in possession of the land bearing khasra nos. 16, 17, 24/1 and 25/1, over which they had unauthorisedly effected construction. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad has also initiated and supervised action for demolition of the construction over the suit land besides being responsible for ousting the petitioners from the land despite the decree of permanent injunction restraining the HUDA from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners. Whatever be the private view of the party, any action on its part to proclaim that a decision rendered by a court was incorrect or that the factual controversy had been wrongly determined by a court, definitely amounts to disrespect of the order passed by the Court. If a party, after asserting that a decision rendered by court was wrong, takes further steps whereby it violates the directions issued by a Court in order to correct the wrong committed by the court its actions most certainly amount to wilful disobedience and wilful breach of the direction of the court.” 3. After recording the above finding, the conduct of the appellant was considered and it was held that the violation was willful. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was a bonafide dispute about identity of the land belonging to the respondents C.A.C.P. No. 4 of 2001 (O&M) (4) and the appellant considered the judgment of the appellate Court to be permitting him to demarcate the land. In these circumstances though the respondents are entitled to continue in possession of two kanals of land comprised in khasra nos. 24/3 and 25/3, a liberal view may be taken on the issue of punishment of the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the contempt petitioners states that the object of filing contempt petition was to enforce the order of the Civil Court and to safeguard their right to continue in possession of two kanals of land comprised in khasra nos. 24/3 and 25/3. 7. In view of above, while we affirm the aforequoted finding of the learned Single Judge, without finally going into the question of action of the appellant being willful or otherwise, we substitute the impugned order by a direction that the respondents will be allowed to remain in possession of land comprised in khasra Nos. 24/3 and 25/3 in accordance with the decree passed by the civil court and in case of any dispute, the executing Court will ensure that the decree-holders are put in possession of the said land, if necessary, by police help. 8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 31, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No