COCP-4869 v. Tilak Raj an

Judgment

1. The present contempt petitio petition has been filed alleging violation of on of order dated 10.01.2023 (Annex Writ (Annexure P-1) passed by the Writ Court in CW CWP-457-2023, titled as ‘Tilak Ra lak Raj and others vs. The Financial Commission issioner (Appeals) and others’ wherei wherein it was directed that ‘till the next date of e of hearing, status quo with respect pect to possession be maintained’.

2. It is, inter alia, submitted b itted by learned counsel for the petitioners th ners that despite grant of status quo quo order in the above said writ petition, the n, the respondents are passing their their cattle on the said land creating nuisance by ce by spreading dung; and at tim at times, causing fear among the RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.07 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-4869 4869-2025 (O&M) -2- devotees, the es, thereby discouraging and preventin It eventing them to visit the temple. It is submitted mitted that on the said land, the temple temple organizes and conduct some religious cer us ceremonies i.e. Pooja, Hawan, Lan , Langar etc. However, due to the continuous uous act of the respondents of unleash d is nleashing their cattle on the land is causing inco g inconvenience to the temple and vill nd villagers. The said contemptuous acts of the f the respondents are evident from pho It is m photographs (Annexure P-2). It is submitted th tted that therefore, the said action of f the respondent is in violation of the status atus quo order dated 10.01.2023 (An 23 (Annexure P-1).

Learned counsel submits that that the petitioners have also made several repr l representations and complaints to nts to the Police Officers to take necessary ac ary action in this regard, however, t ever, to no avail. It is accordingly prayed that that proper action be taken agai against the respondents for the deliberate an rate and wilful violation of order dated r dated 10.01.2023 (Annexure P-1).

4. Per Contra, learned counsel fo sel for the respondents vehemently opposes the es the submissions of learned coun d counsel for the petitioners and submits tha ts that the respondents are the wri e writ petitioners who had filed aforesaid CW aid CWP-457-2023. Grievance of the of the respondents in the said writ petition was n was that the contempt petitioners ha ners had taken village common land and carried arried out partition thereof without n It is hout notice to other villagers. It is submitted th tted that the contempt petitioners had rs had also made an attempt to take over the tem he temple land. In fact, even some pr e private land of the respondents had been ille en illegally encroached upon and take The d taken over by the petitioners. The petitioners h ners herein with mala fide intentions h d in tions had managed to get allotted in their name t ame the common village land belong belonging to the Mandir. Even the part of the l f the land of the respondents herein w rein where rooms, sheds and cattle sheds stood stood constructed was also wrongl wrongly allotted in favour of the RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.07 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-4869 4869-2025 (O&M) -3- petitioners. T ners. The Rasta that led to the land of nd of many co-sharers was wrongly allotted to th d to the present petitioners. The respon pondents herein along with other co-sharers rers had challenged the said partition tition wrongfully carried out behind the responde pondents and other co-villagers by wa by way of filing revision before the Financial Co ial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab unjab. However, the said revision petition was n was dismissed against which the the respondents had preferred the aforesaid wr aid writ petition (CWP-457-2023) in in which the status quo order dated 10.01.

10.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) came to me to be passed in favour of the dents. respondents.

5. It is, therefore, submitted that in a that as their cattle sheds are in a small parcel parcel of land which has been in poss , no n possession of the respondents, no wilful disobe disobedience is made out against the st them. It is further submitted that as per comm common village practice of all cattle attle owners, the cattle may have passed throu through common Rasta to graze in th e in the forest or pastures during the day; howeve owever, the same in no manner amou amounts to wilful interference with the possessi ossession of the petitioners. Learne Learned counsel submits that the respondents dents in no manner wilfully or d or deliberately entered into the possession o sion of the petitioners. It is submit submitted that it was only taking cognizance o ance of the unlawful partition and en n of and ensuing wrongful possession of the petitione titioners over the land in question tha ion that the Writ Court had granted status quo order dated 10.01.2023 (Annexur nexure P-1) in favour of the present respondents. dents. As such, there is no question o r by stion of violating the said order by the responde spondents. It is accordingly, prayed rayed for dismissal of the present petition.

6. No other argument is raised on ties. ed on behalf of either of the parties. I have heard heard learned counsel for the parties le in parties and perused the case file in RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.07 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-4869 4869-2025 (O&M) -4- detail. I find I find no merit in the submissions adv l for ns advanced by learned counsel for the petitione titioner.

7. No wilful disobedience of statu 023 status quo order dated 10.01.2023 (Annexure P xure P-1) as alleged is made out agai against the respondents. The only allegation m tion made by the petitioners is tha is that cattle of the respondents sometime pa ime passes through temple premises th ises thereby causing disturbance to the possessi ssession of the petitioners and othe d in d other devotees over the land in dispute. Ho . However, it is not disputed by d by the learned counsel for the petitioners t ners that there is a common Rast Rasta on the said land which, needless to s ss to say, is for the use of all villagers. lagers.

8. In these circumstances, referenc w as eference may be made to the law as laid down by wn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to urt to the effect that: (1) Contempt is not a substi al. ubstitute for execution or appeal. In Niaz Mohammad v. State of te of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 332, the Hon’ble Apex Court held t of a held that where the directions of a judgment have been substan substantially complied with, any residual grievance must be t be worked out in appropriate proceedings; contempt jurisdiction jurisd is not meant “enforcement of monetary or ot re is y or other civil rights” when there is bona fide compliance. (2) Wilful and deliberate d te disobedience must be clearly proved. In Kapildeo Prasad Sa ) 7 d Sah v. State of Bihar, (1999) 7 SCC 569, the Hon’ble Cou Court explained that for civil contempt it must be shown t own that the disobedience is not merely accidental or due to ina g; if to inability or misunderstanding; if RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.07 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-4869 4869-2025 (O&M) -5- there is any genuine doubt abou or if bt about the scope of the order or if compliance is reasonably arguab arguable, contempt will not lie. (3) Contempt cannot enlarg er. large or vary the original order. In Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. T ) 5 l v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352, and Anil Ratan Sark ) 4 Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21, it has been repeatedly ’ble atedly emphasised that the Hon’ble Court, in contempt, may not y not read into the original order rights or directions which are n h are not expressly granted; a party cannot, under the guise of conte f contempt, obtain substantive relief which it failed to secure in the m n the main proceeding. (4) Standard of proof akin In kin to criminal proceedings. In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v 11 ion v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme C as a reme Court described contempt as a quasi-criminal jurisdiction whe n where findings of guilt must rest on clear, cogent and unimpe nimpeachable evidence of wilful disobedience.

9. Thus, keeping in view the ab the above noted factual and legal aspect, prese , present Contempt Petition is hereby ereby dismissed.

11. Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, s any, shall also stand disposed of. 2026

06.05.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.07 19:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.