IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.A.C.P. No.7 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.8.2009 Paramjit Singh. -----Appellant Vs. Jaswinder Kaur and another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. The appellant is aggrieved by order of learned Single Judge, directing the appellant to allow respondent No.1 to irrigate her land as per her turn from the joint tubewell. 2. The appellant and respondent No.1 are cousins and jointly own the land as well as the tubewell installed thereon. Respondent No.1 filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which was disposed of vide order dated 26.5.2008. In the said petition, respondent No.1 sought a direction for protection of her life, liberty and property and for taking decision on application under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which was said to be pending. The CACP No.7 of 2009 petition was disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority to look into the matter and take action in accordance with law. 3. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed contempt petition, alleging violation of order dated 26.5.2008. The said petition was contested by the Senior Superintendent of Police, who was the only respondent in the petition filed originally. It was explained that complaint of respondent No.1 was duly inquired into and necessary steps were taken and there was no threat to life, liberty or property of the respondent No.1. It was also stated that she had dispute with her cousin, the appellant herein, leading to proceedings under Sections 107, 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Vide order dated 17.4.2009, the contempt petition was disposed of as infructuous, with a direction to the SHO to oversee that respondent No.1 was able to harvest her crop. 5. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed an application being C.M. No.5453-C-II-2009 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure followed by another application impleading the appellant as party. The appellant filed reply, denying the allegation that respondent No.1 was in possession and also pointed out that the matter was pending consideration in suit filed by respondent No.1 herself, seeking declaration that she was owner in possession of specific area of the jointly owned land. 2 CACP No.7 of 2009 6. Learned Single Judge, by impugned order, gave direction that the appellant will allow respondent No.1 to irrigate her land from the joint tubewell. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the following observations:- “....Under these circumstances, the petitioner has every right to draw water from the tubewell for irrigating 18 kanals 8 marlas of agricultural land of which he is in physical possession....” 9. In view of above observations, it is pointed out that in the course of deciding the contempt petition, the issue as to who was in possession of which particular land, has also been decided. The object of contempt proceedings is to enforce an order and the said proceedings are not substitute for adjudication of disputed questions. In the present case, the earlier order was only to look into the grievance of respondent No.1 and there was no finding of the Court. The issue as to who was in possession of any particular area was still pending consideration before the Court. 10. There is no dispute with the proposition put forward by learned counsel for the appellant that order in contempt proceedings should not pre-empt adjudication by competent authority where issue may be pending consideration. However, it being undisputed that respondent No.1 was joint owner in land 3 CACP No.7 of 2009 and tubewell, the appellant cannot obstruct drawing of water from joint tubewell for irrigating such land as may be in possession of respondent No.1. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. It is, however, made clear that the Civil Court, where suit is pending or any other authority where such question may be pending, will be at liberty to deal with the same on the basis of evidence before it, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in the impugned order which has been passed only for the purpose of deciding the contempt proceedings. The Civil Court or concerned authority will be at liberty to decide the dispute as to whether and on which particular land the parties were in possession or were entitled to possession. 7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 31, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 4