Manjeet Singh Vs Anubhar and Others

Present Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating action against the respondents for not complying with the order dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed in CWP No. 21164 of 2024 titled as ‘Manjeet Singh Versus State of Punjab and others’.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that present controversy is in respect of the village pond comprised in Khewat No. 439/403 Khatauni No. 1031, Khasra No. 1678 (30-14) in village Dhilwan Kalan. Due to party faction in the village, Sarpanches were misusing their designations and powers, and in connivance with one another, were illegally occupying the panchayat land of the pond by raising construction. It is submitted that accordingly, Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.09.2024 had directed that official respondents

¶15

DIVYANSHI 2025.07.11 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

COCP-1668-2018 (O&M) - 2 -

¶17

shall ensure that no encroachment activity is carried on the said land, and if there is such activity, the same shall be stopped set forthwith. However, the directions passed by Division Bench of this Court have not been complied with.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent-State strongly refutes the contention made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that it has been categorically stated in the compliance report dated 09.05.2025 filed by way of affidavit of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Block

¶19

Kotkapura, District Faridkot on behalf of respondent No.1, that there is no encroachment over the Khasra No. 1678. In fact, there is no pond in Khasra No. 1678. It is accordingly submitted that no cause for contempt is made out and the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶20

No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail.

¶22

Vide order dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed in CWP21164-2024 titled as ‘Manjeet Singh vs. State of Punjab and others’ Division Bench of this Court had directed as follows: -

¶23

“It is made clear that if any activity is undertaken as such to encroach upon the said land, then the official respondents shall ensure that such activity is immediately stopped. However, in case, there is any development activity being done to improve and beautify the area, then the said direction would not be applicable.”

¶24

DIVYANSHI 2025.07.11 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

COCP-1668-2018 (O&M) - 3 -

¶26

Thereafter vide order dated 05.02.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed in CWP-21164-2024, Division Bench of this Court had further directed as follows: -

¶27

“ 3. In the wake of the above, this Court accepts the present petition and after quashing the impugned order, remands the lis to the Assistant Collector concerned, who shall after calling for a fresh demarcation report from the empowered revenue officer concerned, shall proceed to ensure its becoming proven in accordance with law, and thereafter in terms of the said demarcation report, he may proceed to pass an order of eviction viz-a-víz the encroachers upon the disputed lands.”

¶28

Pursuant thereto, inspection of the Khasra no. 1678 was carried out in the presence of the parties and prominent persons who had been informed vide earlier notification; and a Demarcation report dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure R-1/T) was submitted. As per the said Demarcation Report, it is categorically reported that all corners of Khasra No. 1678 were recorded/identified with the help of computer machine; that there is no pond in this Khasra No.; that there are houses of villagers built in and around this Khasra No. 1678.

¶29

Further, vide order dated 05.02.2025 (Annexure P-4) this Court had directed the remandee Court to make a lawful order after giving opportunity of hearing to all the affected persons within a period of four month from the date of order i.e. 05.02.2025. However, the present Contempt Petition has been filed on 28.03.2025 i.e. much prior to the expiry of the said period of four months.

¶30

DIVYANSHI 2025.07.11 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

COCP-1668-2018 (O&M) - 4 -

¶32