Contempt petition alleging that revenue officials and private parties wilfully entered a mutation despite an order adjourning it sine die. The court found no connivance or wilful disobedience, noted a pending correction application and the official's retirement, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
COCP-1729-2018 (O&M)
Page 1 of 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
210
COCP-1729-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.04.2026
Arun Khanna
...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Sudha Khanna & Others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for respondents No.5 & 6. ***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Contempt Petition has been filed alleging violation of order dated 05.07.2012 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Amritsar, whereby despite the proceedings on the Mutation No.28887 having been adjourned sine die; mutation has been entered in the name of the private parties.
SUNENA 2026.04.30 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP-1729-2018 (O&M)
Page 2 of 6
(Annexure P5) the respondents No.1 to 4 in gross defiance and disobedience of the orders passed by the learned Assistant Collector in their presence and upon taking their consent in connivance with respondents No.5 and 6 illegally got the Mutations reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 2015-16 (Annexure P5). Learned counsel submits that in the absence of any judgment having been passed by any competent Civil Court, respondents No.5 and 6 were not legally competent to allow the reflection of the Mutations in favour of the respondents No.1 to 4 as the same have not been legally served and/or approved. This is especially so as in the Jamabandi for the year 2010-11 (P-4), it is specifically mentioned that the mutation 28887 has been adjourned, sine die. Thus, the aforesaid action of the respondents amounts to wilful disobedience of the order dated 05.07.2012 (Annexure P1 to P3). Thus, the respondents have committed contempt of Court and made themselves liable for punishment.
SUNENA 2026.04.30 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 3 of 6
COCP-1729-2018 (O&M)
respondents No.1 to 4 has been rejected by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 05.07.2012 and the Mutation has been adjourned sine die in order to verify the veracity of the alleged Compromise dated 14.12.1946.
SUNENA 2026.04.30 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
COCP-1729-2018 (O&M)
Page 4 of 6
Hon’ble Supreme Court in C. Elumalai v. A.G.L. Irudayaraj, (SC) : Law Finder Doc ID # 183009, wherein it is held that:-
“B. Contempt of Court Act, 1971, Section 12 - Meaning of word "Wilful" - Contempt of Court - Willful disobedience of an order of Court - 'Wilful' means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. 2003(11) SCC 1 relied.
XXX XXX XXX
8. In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha and Ors., (2003)11 SCC 1, this Court had an occasion to consider the concept of wilful disobedience' of an order of the Court. It was stated that wilful' means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. According to the Court, it signifies the act done with evil intent or with a bad motive for the purpose. It was observed that the act or omission has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.”
Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 332, the
SUNENA 2026.04.30 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 5 of 6
COCP-1729-2018 (O&M)
Hon’ble Apex Court held that where the directions of a judgment have been substantially complied with, any residual grievance must be worked out in appropriate proceedings; contempt jurisdiction is not meant for “enforcement of monetary or other civil rights” when there is bona fide compliance.
SUNENA 2026.04.30 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 6 of 6
COCP-1729-2018 (O&M)
Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court described contempt as a quasicriminal jurisdiction where findings of guilt must rest on clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence of wilful disobedience.
present Contempt Petition is hereby dismissed .
(Nidhi Gupta) 28.04.2026 Judge Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
SUNENA 2026.04.30 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether reflection of Mutation No.28887 in the Jamabandi for 2015-16 despite the Assistant Collector's order adjourning it sine die amounted to wilful disobedience warranting punishment for contempt.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C. Elumalai v. A.G.L. IrudayarajRelied on¶8
(SC) : Law Finder Doc ID # 183009
Niaz Mohammad v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶9
(1994) 6 SCC 332 · Who else cites this
Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of BiharRelied on¶9
(1999) 7 SCC 569 · Who else cites this
Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath GangulyRelied on¶9
(2002) 5 SCC 352 · Who else cites this
Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak GhoshRelied on¶9
(2002) 4 SCC 21 · Who else cites this
Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam GodhaRelied on¶9
(2003) 11 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Arun Khanna
Sudha Khanna
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
