IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.19 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 07.02.2008 Mahila Mandal, Madlauda ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.V.P.Malik, Advocate vs. Amit Aggarwal & others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.R.S.Kundu, Addl.A.G., Haryana. *** 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) The petitioner, a self-acclaimed Mahila Mandal, Madlauda, has filed this contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of the Civil Court order dated 6.9.2006 (Annexure P-2) and the statement/undertaking given by respondent No.6 (the then Sarpanch) of the village before the Civil Court. It appears that with a view to promote and encourage the welfare activities including the opening of a sewing centre etc., the premises owned by the Gram Panchayat was allotted/allowed to be occupied by the petitioner-Mahila Mandal of village Madlauda. The petitioner thereafter filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in which the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat (Smt.Chameli Devi-respondent No.6) made a statement on 6.9.2006, admitting the petitioner's possession over the disputed property and gave an undertaking that the petitioner will not be dispossessed except in due course of law. C.O.C.P. No.19 of 2007 -2- In the light of the above statement, the petitioner withdrew the civil suit. The petitioner now alleges that she has been forcibly dispossessed from the disputed premises. The allegations have been made by her against the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Panipat, Child Development and Panchayat Officer, Madlauda, SHO of the Police Station, Madlauda and Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Madlauda, Tehsildar as well as Sarpanch and other members of the Gram Panchayat. Show cause notice was issued to respondents No.6 and 7 only and in respect thereto they have filed their reply/affidavit. It is revealed from the reply that instead of using the building for running welfare programmes for which it was allotted, the petitioner Smt.Radha Rani started using the same as a dwelling unit of her family. Consequently, the same has been got vacated by the District Administration after issuing show cause notice to her and after observing the principles of natural justice. The household articles which were lying in the premises, list Annexure R-1, have been handed over to the petitioner and a perusal of the said list also strengthens the stand taken by the respondents that the premises was being used for residential purposes and not for carrying out the welfare purposes. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the action taken by the respondents. Disposed of. Rule discharged. February 07, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE