IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. COPC No. 85/2007 Reserved on: 6.8.2008 Decided on:25.8.2008 Bhoop Singh. …Petitioner. Versus Pawan Kumar. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.No. For the petitioner : Pt. Om Prakash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for initiating action against the respondent for willful disobedience of order dated 19.3.2007 passed in CMP No.1774/2006 in CWP No. 1128/2006. The CWP No.1128/2006 was admitted on 19.3.2007. The following order was passed in CMP No. 1774/2006: “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is hereby directed that the parties shall maintain status 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 quo regarding nature and possession of the land in dispute. The application is disposed of.” Pt. Om Prakash Sharma, Advocate had strenuously argued that despite the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 19.3.2007, the respondent has raised construction on the disputed land. He also contended that the respondent is liable to be punished for willful disobedience of order dated 19.3.2007. Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate had contended that though the respondent has raised the construction, but the same has been raised on Khasra No. 750/1 which is shamlat/abadi land. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings carefully. The parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding the nature and possession of the land in dispute on 19.3.2007. The contention of Pt. Om Prakash Sharma is that the respondent in willful disobedience of order dated 19.3.2007, has raised the construction of the house. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the report lodged with the police and photographs, which have also been attached with the petition. The respondent in his reply has admitted that the construction has been raised by him, but it is on the Shamlat/abadi land situated in khasra No. 750/1. Mr. G.D. Verma submitted that this khasra number is not the bone of contention between the parties. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent. It is thus evident that the respondent has raised the construction on Khasra No. 750/1. The copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-04 (Annexure R-1) forms part of the reply. 3 In view of the observations made hereinabove that the construction has been raised on Khasra No. 750/1, there is no willful disobedience of the order of the Court. The notice is discharged. 25.8. 2008 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*