COCP No. 941 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 941 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.8.2010 Ajit Kaur .....Petitioner Versus Gurmail Singh and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of 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? Present: Shri O.P. Kamboj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri R.L. Batta, Senior Advocate, with Shri Nikhil Batta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Shri Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Shri M.C. Berry, Additional AG, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) COCP No. 941 of 2009 [2] The petitioner invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court alleging willful and intentional disobedience to the orders passed by this Court on 10.8.2006 in criminal revision against the order passed by the authorities in respect of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The order was to restore possession to Ajit Kaur, as an assignee of Rupinder Kumar. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the possession has been delivered to the petitioner vide Roznamcha entry, copy of which has been attached as Annexure P.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that Milkha Singh, in whose favour earlier there was an order of delivery of possession, filed an application before the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Ferozepur, without disclosing the order passed by this Court for correction of Khasra Girdawari. The petitioner filed reply to such application pointing out the delivery of possession in terms of the order passed by this Court, but without noticing the said fact, the Assistant Collector, has passed order of correction of Khasra Girdawari. It is, thus, contended that the order passed by the Assistant Collector, correcting the Khasra Girdawari in favour of Milkha Singh, is in violation of the orders passed by this Court. The order passed by this Court on 10.8.2006 is to hand over possession of the land to the petitioner. The stand of the petitioner is not that the possession of the land has not been handed over to the petitioner. Mere order of correction of Khasra Girdawari, does not interfere in the right of possession of the petitioner. If a wrong order has been passed by one authority, it is always open to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy under the statute by way of appeal or revision, as may be permissible. But filing of the present petition alleging that the order of correction of Khasra Girdawari is in COCP No. 941 of 2009 [3] violation of the orders passed by this Court, is nothing but an abuse of process of law and an effort to overawe the authorities. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be deposited with the Punjab Legal Services Authorities within one month from today. [HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 12.8.2010 ds