IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.751 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 19.02.2008 Chanan Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Manish Prabhaker, Advocate vs. Shinda Singh and others ....Respondent(s) through Ms.G.K.Mann, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Mukesh Berry, Additional AG, Punjab for respondents No.4 & 5. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This contempt petition has been filed alleging, inter alia, that despite the stay of further construction by the Collector-cum- B.D.P.O., Amritsar, the respondents have carried out construction at the site. In response to the show cause notice, reply/affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4-B.D.P.O., Chuganva, who has stated on oath that soon after receipt of the stay orders, the other respondents were not permitted to raise the construction. It has been further undertaken that no further construction at the spot shall be permitted. In the light of the above-stated stand taken by respondent No.4, this contempt petition is disposed of, however, with a clarification that in C.O.C.P. No.751 of 2006 -2- case the application filed by the Gram Panchayat against the private respondents is accepted by the Court of competent jurisdiction and as a consequence thereto, the construction, if any, raised at the spot is held to be unauthorized, in that event the Gram Panchayat shall be entitled to remove the same. Disposed of. Rule discharged. February 19, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE