JUDGMENT
Permod Kohli, J.
1. Invoking contempt jurisdiction of this Court, present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming to be one of the proprietors/co-sharers of Shamlat deh “Gair Mumkin Pahar” situated at village Anangpur, District Faridabad. These proceedings have been initiated for alleged violation of the directions passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 5968 of 1996. It may be use full to briefly refer to the factual back ground. This Court, taking cognizance of an anonymous complaint, initiated an action in sui generis and registered the same as C.W.P. No. 5968 of 1996. During the proceedings, the Court directed the Government to constitute a one-man Commission headed by one Shri P.H. Vaishnav, retired Chief Secretary of Punjab to go into the allegations contained in the complaint. Consequent upon the Commission who submitted his enquiry report to the Court reporting various observations in regard to violation of rules etc. Based upon the enquiry report and the reply of the State Government, this Court, while disposing of C.W.P. No. 5968 of 1996, made following observations:
We have been informed that the State Government is already seized of the matter and will proceed against the delinquent officials in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to proceed in the matter. We leave the matter to the State Government to take appropriate action. The State Government shall ensure that all the encroachments are removed and no property in illegal manner is further sold to any individual or colonisers in violation of the statutory rules: The land is to be retrieved from the persons who have taken illegal possession in accordance with law. If the State Government fails in its duty, any person can approach this Court for appropriate direction by filing a fresh writ petition.
2. On the basis of the aforesaid observations/direction, the petitioner herein filed C.W.P. No. 16197 of 2006, before this Court alleging violation of the directions of this Court and also asked for removal of unauthorized occupation made by respondents No. 4 and 5 herein who were arrayed as respondents No. 3 and 4 in the said writ petition. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court with the following observations:
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that directions be issued to respondents No. 1, 2 and 5, to remove unauthorized occupation made by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, from the shamlat deh land. This Court feels that the present writ is not a remedy available to the petitioner, as under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana, he has a remedy to move an application before the Collector for the said purpose. Furthermore, it is apparent from the records that general directions to remove encroachment from the public property, has already been issued by this Court in C.W.P. No. 5968 of 1996 decided on 7.11.1997. Be that as it may, if any remedy is available to the petitioner as per orders passed by this Court, he may avail the same. No case is made out for interference.
Dismissed.
3. Therefore, the present petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging that respondents No. 4 and 5 have raised unauthorized construction over the Gair Mumkin Pahar in Village Ananpur.
4. On being put to notice, the respondents have filed their separate disclaimers pleading therein that there is no violation of the direction of the court. As far as the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad is concerned, it is stated that part of the construction was old and part of the new construction has been raised without proper sanction and part of the same has been demolished. It is further stated that the demolition of entire unauthorised construction could not be carried out, in view of an interlocutory order passed by a subordinate civil court. In so far as the reply filed by the Deputy Commissioner i.e. respondent No. 2 is concerned, it is mentioned in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that the land comprising in Khasra No. 659 and 920 measuring 4500 sq. ft. is recorded in the revenue record as Gair Mumkin Pahar of Shamlat Deh at Village Anangpur and respondent No. 3 is competent to take appropriate action in the matter. Respondents No. 4 and 5 in their detailed reply have referred to judgment and decree dated 19.11.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad in Civil Appeal No. 31/23.2.2001 titled as R.C. Sood & Co. etc. v. R. Kant & Co. and Ors. In terms of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the land in question is the shamlat deh owned by the proprietors of the village. It has further been brought on record that a decree for partition of the property has also been passed by a competent court and after passing of the preliminary decree, the property has been ordered to be partitioned by metes and bonds by appointment of Local Commissioner. However, in view of the pendency of another appeal filed by Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, finilazation of the partition proceedings could not be carried out.
5. Be that as it may, the sole question to be considered in the present case is whether there is violation of any order/direction passed by this Court. From the perusal of the final direction issued in C.W.P. No. 5968 of 1996, it appears that this Court has issued general directions directing the State Government to remove the encroachment and to ensure that all the encroachments are removed and no property in illegal manner be further sold to colonizer in violation of the statutory rules. In so far as this direction is concerned, it is not the case of the petitioner that respondents No. 4 and 5 have encroached upon the public property and sold in violation of the statutory rules. The second part of the direction is that the land be retrieved from the persons who have taken illegal possession, in accordance with law. Even this direction has not been violated in any manner for the simple reason that the land comprised in Khasra Nos.659 and 620 is a gair mumkin pahar, belonging to the proprietors and co-sharers of the village. Is not in dispute that respondents No. 4 and 5 are also the co-sharers and are in exclusive possession of land where construction has been raised. The matter regarding partition between the proprietors and the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad is under consideration. Till the property is partitioned, every proprietor is owner of each inch of the property. Hence their is no violation of the aforesaid direction of this Court. The plea of the respondent-Municipal Corporation is that the construction is being demolished, being in violation of the Municipal Laws and not because of violation of the directions of this Court. No contempt is made out. It would not be out of context to say that the present petition is misuse of the contempt jurisdiction of this Court.
6. Contempt Petition is dismissed.