Sher Singh Vs Kulwinder Singh Randhawa & Ors.

The present contempt peti t ion has been filed alleging violation o f order dated 06.10.2003 (Ann e xure P-1) passed in RSA-7352002, title d as ‘Didar Singh and another v s . Sher Singh’, whereby the said second ap p eal was admitted and it was directed that ‘status quo with regard to t he possession shall be maintai n ed during the pendency of the appeal’.

¶13

It is , inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid second ap p eal has been filed by Didar Singh/fath e r of respondent No. 7 herein. Vide order dated 06.10.2003 (Annexure P-1), it had been directed t h at status quo with regard to possession be maintained during the pendency of the appeal. It is submitted that it is undisputed fact on r ecord that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question. Howev e r, for the last several years, the BDPO, B l ock Dhilwan, District Kapur t hala, has been harassing the

¶14

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶15

COCP-343-2015 -2-

¶16

petitioner on the one pretext or the ot h er. In the year 2012, BDPO, Administr a tor and Tehsildar Kapurthala had started harassing the petitioner a nd threatened to dispossess h im from the land in question. According l y, petitioner had served a l e gal notice dated 28.04.2012 (Annexure P-5) upon them through his co u nsel, in pursuance to which the said perso n s have stopped harassment f o r a short while. However, in December 2012, again Bhupinder Singh, BDPO started harassing the petitioner a nd tried to interfere in his poss e ssion. The petitioner had again served leg a l notice dated 05.01.2013 (An n exure P-6) on said Bhupinder Singh, BD P O. Yet again, in August 2014, BDPO, Dhilwan and Sarpanch Gurdev S i ngh, harassed the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner was constraine d to serve legal notice dated 0 9.08.2014 (Annexure P-7) on BDPO, D h ilwan. The petitioner had e v en given a complaint dated 02.12.201 4 (Annexure P-9) to the Se n ior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthal a . However, Kulwinder Singh R a ndhawa, BDPO in connivance with Sarp a nch Gurdev Singh and other Pa n chayat Members with the help of respond e nt No. 3-SHO, Police Station K otwali along with other police officials o n 02.01.2015 had destroyed t he wheat crop sown by the petitioner in the land in question and a lso destroyed all Guava trees planted b y him. The petitioner had moved an application dated 06.01.201 5 (Annexure P-10) before the S S P, Kapurthala, however, to no avail. It is accordingly submitted that th e respondents have committed grave viol a tion of the order dated 06.10.2 0 03 (Annexure P-1) which is in operation a nd the petitioner is in posse s sion of the land in question. However, t he official respondents had ta k en the law in their own hands

¶17

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶18

COCP-343-2015

¶19

-3-

¶20

and had s h own great disrespect against the orders of this Court. It is accordingl y , prayed that strict action may b e taken against them. 3. Status report dated 23.02.20 2 6 filed by way of affidavit of Inspector Hardip Singh, SHO, Poli c e Station Kotwali, District Kapurthal a , on behalf of respondent No. 3 i s taken on record. 4. Learned counsel for respond e nt No. 1 vehemently opposes the submi s sions advanced by learned c ounsel for the petitioner and submits th a t the present contempt petition is not maintainable and in fact is a grave misuse of the due process of l aw. It is firstly submitted that RSA-735- 2 002, in which the order dated 0 6.10.2003 (Annexure P-1) had been pass e d already stands dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 25. 0 9.2025. As such, the pres e nt contempt petition is not maintaina b le.

¶21

Learned counsel further s u bmits that the order dated 06.10.200 3 is passed in personam and, th e refore, is operative upon inter se parties t o the lis. Admittedly, the respo n dents herein are not parties in the afores a id second appeal bearing RS A -735-2002. Neither the Gram Panchayat nor any official of the District A dministration, Kapurthala, is a party in th e said second appeal. Therefore, the respondents cannot be held liable for contempt of the order dated 06.1 0 .2003 (Annexure P-1). 6. Learned counsel for responde n t No. 1 further submits that in actual fact , the petitioner is in illegal poss e ssion of the land in question. In this regar d , learned counsel refers to the order dated 30.09.2015 (Annexure R-1/1) passed by Sh. Balraj S i ngh, District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Panchayat Land, Kapurthala. It is pointed o u t that the Gram Panchayat, B o ot Block Dhilwan, Tehsil and

¶22

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶23

COCP-343-2015

¶24

-4-

¶25

District K a purthala had filed petition ag a inst the present petitioner and others und e r Section 7 of the Punjab Villa g e Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961 for their eviction from the la n d in question. Vide the form mentioned order dated 30.9.2015, the said petition had been allowed; and it was fo u nd that as per the Jamaband i for the year 2009-10, Nagar Panchayat was the owner of the land in q uestion; and that the petitioner and other similarly situated persons had illegally occupied the same. It was also f ound that the petitioner is not paying any lease or any other amount to the Panchayat for their unautho r ized occupation. As such, vide order date d 30.09.2015 (Annexure R-1/1), the petitioner along with other persons w a s ordered to be evicted from the land in question. 7. On a direct Court query, it has been admitted by learned counsel fo r the petitioner that the order d ated 30.09.2015, has not been challenged by the petitioner till date. 8. Learned counsel for respond e nt No.1 further points out that despite the order dated 30.09.2015, as the petitioner was not vacating the land in qu e stion, the respondent-Gram Pa n chayat, Boot, had filed CWP6060-2017 before this Court titled as ‘Gra m Panchayat Boot vs. Director, Rural De v elopment and Panchayat De p artment, Punjab and others’; which wa s disposed of by the Division B ench of this Court vide order dated 19.04.2017 (Annexure R-1/2), in v iew of the statement made by learned St a te counsel, which reads as follo w s:-

¶26

“....Learned counsel for the S tate on instructions from Mrs. Saroj Aggarwal, Tehsildar, K apurthala submitted that there being no stay by any authori t y against the order of eviction passed against the private r espondents, appropriate steps shall be taken to take pos s ession from the unauthorised occupants and hand over the same to the Gram Panchayat. Needful shall be done within a period of four weeks....”

¶27

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶28

COCP-343-2015

¶29

-5-

¶30

Learned counsel for responde n t No. 1 also points out that the petitioner had previously filed COCP-2 4 41-2012 (Annexure R-1/3) in RSA-735- 2 002, alleging violation of the order dated 06.10.2003 (Annexure P-1) which was dismissed as w ithdrawn by the petitioner vide order date d 10.04.2013. It is submitted t h at from the above facts, it is clear that t he present petition is a grave m isuse of contempt jurisdiction and is mer e ly an attempt to overawe the re s pondents. 10. At this stage, as learned coun s el for the petitioner is unable to deny or d i spute the above-said facts as stated by learned counsel for responden t No. 1; as also borne out from the record; learned counsel for the petitio n er submits that he may be per m itted to withdraw the present contempt p etition.

¶31

Having heard learned counse l for the parties and in view of the un-dis p uted facts as noted above, the present contempt petition is dismissed as withdrawn .

¶32

Rule stands discharged.

¶33

Pending application(s), if any , shall also stand disposed of.

¶34

24.02.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

¶35

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

¶36

Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶37

RISHU KATARIA 2026.02.26 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Sher Singh v. Kulwinder Singh Randhawa & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sher Singh v. Kulwinder Singh Randhawa & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Preeti Vs Paramjeet Singh and Others

Ram Kumar and Anr. Vs Ishwar and Ors.

Amarjit Kaur and Others Vs Gurcharan Singh and Others

Nidhi Verma Vs V.K. Jain Secretary Shrijainendra Gurukul Sector 1 Distt Panchkula

Jagmohan Vs M/S Laxmi Narayan Naresh Kumar

Citizens for Public Causes (Regd) Vs Parminder Singh Gill and Ors.