Harbans Singh v. Inderjit Singh

-1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 10.12.2019 Harbans Singh Petitioner

Versus

Inderjit Singh Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:

Mr. S.D. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ved Priya Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kewal Krishan, Advocate for the respondent.

Ms. Samina Dhir, DAG, Punjab assisted by HC Jaswant Singh, Police Station Ramdass, Amritsar (Rural) **** AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (Oral):

There was a litigation between father and one out of four sons in CWP No.9332 of 2015. The compromise was arrived at which was reduced into writing.

The relevant clause (v) of the compromise is reproduced below:- "(v) that the petitioner namely Inderjit Singh son of Harbans Singh has agreed to give physical possession of 1 Killa of land i.e. 8 kanal from Khasra Numbers 55/6, 55//5/2 and 46//25 within a period of two months from the date of the order passed in the above Writ Petition No.9332 of 2015. Both the parties will also

-2get the Mutation sanctioned of land of Khasra Numbers 55//6 (4K-18M), 55//5/2 (2K-12M), 46//25 (0-10M) within the aforesaid period of two month in favour of Harbans Singh son of Late Kartar Singh r/o Village Makowal, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar."

In view of terms of compromise, the writ petition was disposed of on 20.05.2019. The direction was issued to the respondent No.1 (in the writ petition) to carry out appropriate mutation proceedings and to ensure that possession of land is given to the respondent No.3 (petitioner in the contempt petition). The grievance in the present petition is that possession of 1 Killa i.e. 8K from Khasra Numbers 55//6 (4K-18M), 55//5/2 (2K-12M), 46//25 (0-10M) of village Makowal, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar has not been handed over to the petitioner. As the respondent was not present on 05.12.2019 in spite of directions dated 01.11.2019, the SHO concerned was directed to ensure the presence of the respondent in the Court on the adjourned date.

Police official present in the Court informs that the respondent was not traceable when he visited his place. Today Mr. Inderjit Singh-respondent is present in the Court, as verified by his counsel. He submits that he has already given possession of the land detailed above and he is not and will not interfere in the said possession.

In view of statement made, the contempt petition is

-3disposed of.

Needless to say that petitioner would be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to safeguard his possession over the said area.

[AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE December 10, 2019