412 S Inthe HighCourt for the States of Punjaband Haryana at Chaiidigarh COCP No52of20008M1 Date of decisionl Septemberl 2009 RajKumar son of Jeet Lal Petitioner 1 Versus HarvinderSinghRandhawa and others 0 Respondents C 1 Coram Honble Mr Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg tt Present Mr LNerma Advocate I for the petitioners Mr HRiarSr Advocate with Mi Sameer Sachdeva Advocate Z for respondents 2 Rakesh Kumar GargJOrall As per the averments made in this petitionvide judgment dated 08 82007 passed ill RSA No 129 of 2006 suit of the was decreed restraining the defendants from forciblydispossessing him from the suit 7 Z Iancl However it was open to the to take possessionof 3 tl the suit Iand from the petitionerin accordance with Iaw It is further averred that thereafter the respondent 1 PunjabMandi Board Jalandhar filed a petition under the provisionsof PunjabPublic Premises Act for eviction of the petitioner from the Iand in questionwhich is pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate cummCollectorJaIandhar According to the petitioneron 1432008 when the petitioner was ploughing his Iand with his Tractor respondentNo 1 to 5 alongwith ceItain other persons entered in the Iand in questionand asked him to Ieavethe site and threatened him of dire consequences if he dared to enter in the Iand in questionagair1eated argumentsensued thereuponbetween the petitionerand respondentNosl to 51fter some time the respondents Ieft the Q44 Radhika 2013.04.20 13: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 413 Q COCP No52 of 2009 2 spotalongwith other persons In view of the serious threats as advanced bythe aforesaid respondentthe petitionersubmitted a complaintto the police According to the petitionerthe respondents came againon 15 3 2008 and asked him to stopploughing the Iand in questionand get out of the fieid However petitionerrefused to obligethem Thereafter respondents came againon the same day alongwith policeforce The policeofficials told him that theyhad come on the spotto helpthe respondents to stophim from ploughing the Iand in e 0 questionHowever the petitionerconfronted the policewith copy of the order dated 9 8 2007 The petitionersubmitted another applicationto the policeon C that date Accordingto the petitionerthere was another attemptby the I e C5 respondentson 16 2008 to evict him forcibly However the petitioner I successfully resisted their move Thus according to the petitionerthe aforesaid action of the respondents IS Ill violation of the orders passedbythis court IS Z againstthe judgmentand decree dated 92007 passedin RSA No 129 of 2006 I In response to the show cause notice issued by this court two 08 separaterepiiesby way of an affidavit of Shri Harinder Singh Randhawa 00 2t SecretaryMarket Committee Jalandhar and Shri DaljeetSingh PCS Joint 3 Z Director 64dmnl PunjabMandi Board Chandigarh were filed wherein the allegations Ievelledbythe petitioner were denied and it was submined that the 0 Collector Jalandhar vide his order dated 102008 had ordered the eviction of the petitionerfrom the Iand In disputeunder the provisionsof PunjabPublic Premises Act 1971 and appealfiled bythe petitioner was also dismissed bythe DeputyCommissioner the powers of Commissionerunder the aforesaidActl vide order dated 24712008 Even Civil Revision No 5331 of 2008 filed by the petitionerbefore this Couit challenging the aforesaidordes was also dismissed vide order dated 302008 and thereafter the respondents have taken the possessionof the Iand in disputeon 1212008 in execution of the crders of eviction passedbythe Collector Jalandhar on the basis of warranl of possessionAnnexure Re81issued byhim and thus the respondents have not 1148 Radhika 2013.04.20 13: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 414 0 COCP N 552 of 2008 3 Ve committedany disobedience of the judgmentand decree passedbythis coun haveheard Iearnedcounsel for the paniesand perusedthe record of this contemptpetition Thereis no rejoinder to the replyfiled on behalf of respondents IS not possibleto hold that respondentshave disobeyedthe judgmentand decree dated 92007 on the basis of allegedthreats of forcible dispossession as averred by the petitioneras those facts can only be provedby Ieading 1 evidence Even accordingto the petitionerhe was never dispossessedwhen 0 C the allegedthreatsof forcible were given bythe responclentsto 1 52 him A Onding fact that the petitioner is in unauthorizedpossessionof the Iand in I disputehas been recorded Ill the judgmentand decree dated 32007 However the possessionof the petitionerwas protectedonlyagainstforcible Z dispossession and the respondents were free to take possessionof the suit Iand from the petitionerin accordance with iaw From the facts as narrated above it is clear that the respondents 08 have taken the possessionof the Iand in disputein accordance with Iaw and there is no willful disobedience on their pan Even otherwisethe judgment and 7 decree dated 2007 is executable underthe provisionsof Civil Procedure 1 1 112 Code Thus I find that this petitionis without any merit and the same is herebydismissed Rule discharged G September 2009 RAKESH KUMAR GARGI nk JUDGE etO 40r5 5 C Radhika 2013.04.20 13: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document