IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.A.C.P. No.7 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 31.8.2009
Paramjit Singh.
-----Appellant
Vs.
Jaswinder Kaur and another.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate
for the appellant.
-----
ORDER:
1. The appellant is aggrieved by order of learned Single
Judge, directing the appellant to allow respondent No.1 to irrigate
her land as per her turn from the joint tubewell.
2. The appellant and respondent No.1 are cousins and
jointly own the land as well as the tubewell installed thereon.
Respondent No.1 filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which was disposed of vide order
dated 26.5.2008. In the said petition, respondent No.1 sought a
direction for protection of her life, liberty and property and for
taking decision on application under Section 145 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 which was said to be pending. The
CACP No.7 of 2009 2
petition was disposed of with a direction to the concerned
authority to look into the matter and take action in accordance
with law.
3. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed contempt petition,
alleging violation of order dated 26.5.2008. The said petition was
contested by the Senior Superintendent of Police, who was the
only respondent in the petition filed originally. It was explained
that complaint of respondent No.1 was duly inquired into and
necessary steps were taken and there was no threat to life, liberty
or property of the respondent No.1. It was also stated that she
had dispute with her cousin, the appellant herein, leading to
proceedings under Sections 107, 151 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and also under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
4. Vide order dated 17.4.2009, the contempt petition was
disposed of as infructuous, with a direction to the SHO to oversee
that respondent No.1 was able to harvest her crop.
5. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed an application being
C.M. No.5453-C-II-2009 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure followed by another application impleading the
appellant as party. The appellant filed reply, denying the
allegation that respondent No.1 was in possession and also
pointed out that the matter was pending consideration in suit filed
by respondent No.1 herself, seeking declaration that she was
owner in possession of specific area of the jointly owned land.
CACP No.7 of 2009 3
6. Learned Single Judge, by impugned order, gave
direction that the appellant will allow respondent No.1 to irrigate
her land from the joint tubewell.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our
attention to the following observations:-
“….Under these circumstances, the petitioner has
every right to draw water from the tubewell for
irrigating 18 kanals 8 marlas of agricultural land of
which he is in physical possession….”
9. In view of above observations, it is pointed out that in
the course of deciding the contempt petition, the issue as to who
was in possession of which particular land, has also been
decided. The object of contempt proceedings is to enforce an
order and the said proceedings are not substitute for adjudication
of disputed questions. In the present case, the earlier order was
only to look into the grievance of respondent No.1 and there was
no finding of the Court. The issue as to who was in possession of
any particular area was still pending consideration before the
Court.
10. There is no dispute with the proposition put forward by
learned counsel for the appellant that order in contempt
proceedings should not pre-empt adjudication by competent
authority where issue may be pending consideration. However, it
being undisputed that respondent No.1 was joint owner in land
CACP No.7 of 2009 4
and tubewell, the appellant cannot obstruct drawing of water from
joint tubewell for irrigating such land as may be in possession of
respondent No.1. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere
with the impugned order. It is, however, made clear that the Civil
Court, where suit is pending or any other authority where such
question may be pending, will be at liberty to deal with the same
on the basis of evidence before it, in accordance with law, without
being influenced by any observations made in the impugned
order which has been passed only for the purpose of deciding the
contempt proceedings. The Civil Court or concerned authority will
be at liberty to decide the dispute as to whether and on which
particular land the parties were in possession or were entitled to
possession.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
August 31, 2009 ( DAYA
CHAUDHARY )
ashwani JUDGE