30.07.2025 Vijay Kum y Kumar Jindal and another … v. Dr. Sumit Haryana S Sumit Misra, IAS, Financial Comm ana Secretariat, Sector 17, Chandig
Case Details
COCP-2331-2025 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 107 COCP No.2331 o Date of decision 2331 of 2025 (O & M) cision :-30.07.2025 Vijay Kum y Kumar Jindal and another …..Petitioners Versus Dr. Sumit Haryana S Sumit Misra, IAS, Financial Comm ana Secretariat, Sector 17, Chandig Commissioner, Revenue, New andigarh and another …..Respondents CORAM: AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NI E NIDHI GUPTA Present:-
Legal Reasoning
ed by this Court in CWP No.1248 of 48 of 1986 titled as “Ram Niwas and others others vs. The State of Haryana, yana, through the Secretary to Governmen ernment, Haryana, Revenue Departmen artment, Chandigarh & another”. The brief facts of the case a case are that the petitioners had filed Civil W Civil Writ Petition No.1248 of 1986 1986 seeking issuance of a writ in the nature ature of Certiorari for quashing orde g order dated 19.1.1960. It was prayed tha ed that impugned order be set aside aside as, in the absence of any order decl r declaring any parcel of land surp d surplus in the hands of the petitioners ioners or their late father, the respon respondents were not entitled to allot any a any area of land belonging to the p the petitioners and prayed that VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.31 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-2331-2025 (O & M) 2 respondent ndents be restrained from interfering rfering in the possession of the petitioners ioners over their land. The said writ petition was disp
Arguments
cate Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, AAG, AAG, Haryana. NIDHI GU HI GUPTA J. (Oral) The present contempt petitio petition has been filed alleging willful diso ul disobedience of the order dated 1 ated 13.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by t
Decision
as disposed of by this Court vide order date r dated 13.10.2011 (Annexure ure P-1) whereby, following order/direc /direction was passed: - “…Both the writ pe impugned orders are se liberty to re-determin excluding the property r (5.5 standard acres) an lessened to the exten consolidation proceedin as brought through Ann petitions are allowed. The re set aside. The Collector is at rmine the surplus area after rty referred to as banjar qadim ) and properties that have been extent referred to above in eedings viz. 2.5 standard acres, Annexure P-3.” Learned counsel for the petiti petitioners submits that by way of the abo e above direction, the respondents dents were called upon to re- determine t mine the surplus area after excluding luding the property referred to as banjar qad qadim. It is submitted that in pursua pursuance of the above said order of this Cou is Court, proceedings were initiated tiated by the respondents, which are continu ontinuing up till the year 2022. Howe owever, no further proceedings have taken taken place recently; and therefore, efore, the said direction has not been comp complied with till date. It is submitte bmitted that the petitioners have been pursu pursuing the respondents for complia mpliance of the order (Annexure P-1), howe , however, despite regular follow-up, n up, no further proceedings have been taken taken place. It is accordingly stated stated that the respondents have committed itted willful and deliberate disobedie obedience of the direction of this Court. Heard. VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.31 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-2331-2025 (O & M) 3 Perusal of the present contemp ontempt petition shows that it has been stated stated in paras 4 and 5 thereof tha of that pursuant to order dated 13.10.2011 0.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by th by this Court, respondent No.2 vide letter letter dated 11.7.2022 had directed irected the Tehsildar Gannur to comply wi ly with the directions dated 13.10.2 3.10.2011. It has further been stated that d that thereafter the petitioners and rs and other shareholders were directed to ted to appear before the Sub Divi b Divisional Officer (Civil) on 23.11.2022 1.2022. It is alleged that no proce proceedings have taken place after. thereafter. First and foremost a contempt tempt petition cannot lie after 14 years of th of the passing of order dated 13.10.2 13.10.2011. As per Section 20 of the Contem Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ‘No No Court shall initiate any proceeding dings of contempt, either on its own own motion or otherwise, after the expiry o iry of a period of one year from the the date on which the contempt is alleged t ged to have been committed.’ Thus, Thus, a contempt petition cannot be enterta ntertained at this belated stage in age in respect of order dated 13.10.2011 0.2011. I find support in my view from w from a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Su ’ble Supreme Court in S. Tirupathi Ra thi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah (SC) : Law Find Finder Doc Id # 2618555 wherein i erein it is held that: “Delay in filing a contempt pe pt petition should be adequately justified, and the court must adher justi dhere to the limitation period stipulated under Section 20 of the Co stipu e Contempt of Courts Act. A. Contempt of Courts Act, ct, 1971 Section 20 Limitation for actions for contempt - The High for a igh Court's judgment allowing a review petition without adhering t a rev ing to the limitation period was erroneous - The contempt petition w erro ion was barred by limitation as VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.31 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-2331-2025 (O & M) 4 it was filed more than five years it w ears after the order, and no sufficient cause for delay was s suffi as shown - The concept of "continuing wrong" must be "con e adequately pleaded and established to overcome the limitatio estab tation bar.” Clearly therefore, the presen present contempt petition is not maintainab tainable. Furthermore, the above refer e referred orders dated 11.7.2022 and 23.11.2 23.11.2022have not been brought on fi t on file by the petitioners. Thus, it would ap uld appear that a reference has been been made to the said orders by the petition etitioners only in an attempt to bring bring the present case within the concept of ept of ‘continuing wrong’. It has t has also been stated by the petitioners ioners that they have been regularl egularly following up with the respondent ndent authorities. However, nothing othing in this regard has again been broug ners. brought on record by the petitioners. Thus, keeping in view the ab the above said facts, the present petition sta ion stands Dismissed. Rule is discharged. Pending application(s), if any, if any, shall stands disposed of. , 2025 July 30, 20 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.31 19.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document