C.O.C.P. No.1568 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.1568 of 2008 Date of decision : 4-3-2009 Joginder Singh and others ....Petitioners VERSUS Shri. Vivek Partap Singh and Others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. Gurbachan Singh Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Shilpa Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. R.S. Khosla, Advocate, for respondent No.3. MAHESH GROVER, J. (Oral) This contempt petition has been filed against the respondents for violating the order dated 11-05-1993, which existed in their favour protecting the possession of the petitioners, when they approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.5324 of 1993. Along with the said writ petition, number of other writ petitions were also filed in which similar orders existed. The petitioners were in occupation of some land of the respondents unauthorizedly. It has C.O.C.P. No.1568 of 2008 -2- been alleged that on 20-9-2008, the respondents without any order in their favour and without getting the interim directions given by this Court in favour of the petitioners vacated, resorted to demolition drive and no notice was served upon them prior thereto. The houses of the petitioners No.1 to 11 were demolished. It is the case of the petitioners that when the demolition was taking place, they brought the order of this Court to the notice of the respondents and under the threat of contempt proceedings, they stopped the demolitions. They have attached the relevant photographs to substantiate their pleadings. Respondent No.1 despite service has chosen not to file reply. In his reply, respondent No.2 – Chief Administrator of Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) has stated that he had no role to play after the setting up of Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) and, therefore, has pleaded that the rule against him be discharged. Respondent No.3 – Sh. Sukhjeet Pal Singh, the Estate Officer of the GMADA has filed a detailed reply and after admitting the pendency of the writ petitions as explained in Para No.4 stated as follows:- "That most of the area of the slum was covered by the writ petitions which had been decided by this Hon'ble Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Accordingly, an encroachment made on the area, covered by these writ petitions, was removed in the month of September 2008 i.e. subsequent to the passing of the Orders passed by C.O.C.P. No.1568 of 2008 -3- this Hon'ble Court in LPA No.2 of 2007. At the time of demolition, some of the encroachers claimed that their writ petitions were still pending before this Hon'ble Court and accordingly, demolitions, qua their encroachments was stopped and accordingly Civil Miscellaneous Applications were moved in those writ petitions i.e. CWP No.4817 of 1993 and CWP No.5324 of 1993. These miscellaneous applications were also taken up for hearing on 18-07-2008 (Sic.20-10-2008) and above mentioned two writ petitions were dismissed and decided on the same terms as the earlier writ petitions as such the path was cleared for the removal of the remaining encroachments also. This was, done in gradual manner, after 20-11-2008. As such, the area is now free from encroachment to the great relief of not only the residents of the adjoining area but the entire city of Mohali. As a matter of fact, a road, construction of which was held up due to the existence of slum, is being constructed at the moment." Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in view of the obvious facts contained in the order of this Court which were in existence, the respondents resorted to the demolition of their houses, it is a clear case where the respondents should be punished under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 for violating the directions contained therein. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, contended with reference to the aforesaid pleadings, that the matter had been determined in other connected cases by the Letters Patent Bench which had dismissed the similar writ petitions and SLP against them was also dismissed and armed with those orders, they had started to clear the encroachments and when the petitioners brought C.O.C.P. No.1568 of 2008 -4- to their notice that some of the writ petitions were still pending and the interim orders of the Courts were still alive, they instantly stopped the demolitions and moved the Court appropriately for decision of the said writ petitions. After the decision of the writ petitions, it was 2 months thereafter that the remaining encroachments were removed. It was, thus, contended that there was absolutely no violation of the orders of this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the pleadings of the parties reveals that there were a number of writ petitions of the like nature which were pending before this Court and some of them were segregated and decided and further leading to decisions by the Letters Patent Bench and also by the Apex Court. There is no denial to the fact that the other connected writ petitions were dismissed and consequent impact of such dismissals was that encroachments were to be removed. Respondent No.3, in his affidavit, also stated that demolitions were carried out subsequent to the determination of the proceedings in connected writ petitions and as soon as they were apprised of the pendency of some writ petitions, the demolitions were stopped and it is only after getting the proceedings in the instant Civil Writ Petition Nos.4817 of 1993 and 5324 of 1993 were decided that they carried out the demolitions and that too after two months. The petitioners have not filed any further affidavit to bring any material on record to offset the averments made in the affidavit of respondent No.3. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have failed to establish their case so as to warrant C.O.C.P. No.1568 of 2008 -5- initiation of the proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondents. The rule against them is, accordingly, discharged. Dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) 4-3-2009 JUDGE manju