IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. COCP No. 1077 of 2006 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 02.09.2011 Karnail Kaur .... PETITIONER Versus Gurbaksh Singh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. G.S. Grewal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. H.S. Grewal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate, for Mr. R.S. Khosla, Advocate, for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) This contempt petition was filed by the petitioner, alleging that the respondents have violated the interim order dated 19.4.2001 passed in CWP No. 5512 of 2001, whereby status quo regarding possession was ordered to be maintained. At one point of time, this contempt petition was dismissed vide order dated 17.8.2007, by passing the following order : “Shri Khosla, learned counsel representing the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, states that the possession certificate issued on 28.7.2006 in favour of Radha Swami Satsang (Beas) Mohali, in terms of allotment letter dated 13.12.2001 has been withdrawn and the possession has been ordered to be restored in favour of Karnail Kaur wife of Sucha Singh, Gurnam Singh, Jaspal Singh sons of Sucha Singh with COCP No. 1077 of 2006 -2- immediate effect vide letter dated 16.8.2007. The said communication is taken on record. In view of the said fact, no further orders are called for in the present contempt petition. The same is dismissed. Rule is discharged.” Subsequently, an application (CM No. 16091-CII of 2008) for reviving the contempt petition was filed. Learned counsel for respondents No.1, 3 and 4 argued that since the main writ petition (CWP No. 5512 of 2001) filed by the petitioner and others, in which notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were challenged, has been dismissed by this court vide order dated 19.4.2011, therefore, this contempt petition has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid factual position. In view of the fact that the main writ petition, filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed, we do not want to further proceed with these contempt proceedings. Dismissed. Rule is discharged. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 02, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) ndj JUDGE