The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed with Rs 6 lakh costs a contempt petition filed by Congress MLA Sukhpal Singh Khaira against state officials alleging demolition of a portion of his “ancestral property”.
Among other things, the Bench dubbed the petition as a “misuse of the process of court” and added that such matters consumed precious judicial time and subjected public officials to unnecessary litigation despite acting in “purported discharge of statutory obligations”.
“The pleadings reveal a conscious attempt to cloak an ordinary civil and administrative dispute with the colour of contempt proceedings by selectively invoking the directions issued by the Supreme Court (in its landmark order on demolitions),” Justice Sudeepti Sharma asserted.
Khaira—the MLA from Bholath constituency in Kapurthala district and a former Leader of Opposition in the Punjab Legislative Assembly—had alleged that state authorities demolished a wall and gate forming part of his ancestral residential property in Ramgarh village without following the procedural safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court.
Khaira’s contempt petition alleged “deliberate and wilful disobedience” of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in “In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, decided on November 13, 2024”. That judgment had laid down comprehensive safeguards for demolitions across India.
IAS officer Amit Panchal and other respondents contested the petition by arguing that the demolished structure was an unauthorised encroachment on public land—a category expressly excluded from the Supreme Court’s demolition safeguards.
Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BDPO) Kulwinder Singh Randhawa’s affidavit dated April 22, was also placed on record producing documentary evidence to establish that the land in question formed part of a “public street/public passage vested in the Gram Panchayat.”
After hearing rival contentions, Justice Sharma asserted the court was required to see whether the structure fell within the exempted category recognised by the Supreme Court. The affidavit and the material annexed revealed that substantial documentary evidence to prima facie establish the land formed part of a public street/public passage vested in the Gram Panchayat. They had also referred to complaints submitted by local residents, reports of the Junior Engineer, entries contained in the measurement book of the gram panchayat, records under the SVAMITVA scheme and satellite imagery reflecting the existence of a public passage at the relevant site.
“This court also finds substance in the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the present petition has been artfully and cleverly drafted so as to give an impression of violation of the judgment rendered by Supreme Court,” Justice Sharma observed.
The Bench added repeated references in the petition to political rivalry, alleged harassment and registration of FIRs further demonstrated that the petitioner had sought to widen the scope of the present proceedings “far beyond the narrow confines of contempt jurisdiction. Such an attempt to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by employing ingenious drafting deserves serious disapproval,” Justice Sharma asserted.
The Bench asserted it was of the considered view that the petitioner had failed to make out a case of willful or intentional disobedience. “On the contrary, the record prima facie establishes that the respondents acted in discharge of statutory duties for removal of alleged encroachment from public land/public passage,” Justice Sharma asserted.
Before parting, the Bench asserted time had come to impose deterrent costs upon frivolous litigants. “If, in cases of genuine disobedience, costs can be imposed upon officials and recovered from their salaries, there is no reason why, in cases of manifest abuse of process such as the present one, the erring petitioner should not be saddled with exemplary costs payable to the affected officials,” Justice Sharma concluded.
