The court emphasized that a contempt petition cannot proceed further if the interim order has merged with the final order and the respondents cannot be punished for an order that is no longer in operation.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The grievance of the petitioners is that an interim order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 7.11.2005 (Annexure P.10) has been violated by the respondents.

2. The respondent-Gram Panchayat has sought the ejectment of the petitioners herein by initiating proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (regulation) Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). The learned Collector dismissed the petition on 10.4.2002 but the appeal against the aforesaid order was accepted by the learned Director on 8.7.2005. Vide the aforesaid order, the learned Block Development and Panchayat Officer was directed to get demarcated the pond and if it is found that the respondents are in illegal possession, they be removed immediately.

3. In the writ petition against the aforesaid order, this Court stayed the dispossession of the petitioners on 7.11.2005. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of the order of stay communicated to respondent No. 1, the said respondent started stacking rig for drilling bore, pipes and auxiliary machinery for installing tube well on the land in dispute. The petitioners even approached the police authorities but respondent No. 1 on 19.11.2005, started digging of bore in the land in dispute, which is in possession of the petitioners. It is also pointed out that the Block Development and Panchayat Officer has issued a letter on 29.11.2005 directing respondent No. 1 to stop the works being undertaken by the Panchayat in Khasra No. 306 in view of the stay order passed by this Court. Since, respondent No. 1 was not desisting his activities and violated the stay order passed by this Court, respondent No. 2 called respondent No. 1 and the petitioners in his office on 25.11.2005 but respondent No. 1 willfully, deliberately and intentionally continued the digging of the tubewell in the land in dispute. It is also alleged that respondent Nos. 1,5,6 and 7 threw inflammable substance on the wife of petitioner No. 1, namely, Paramjit Kaur and set her ablaze and gave lathi blows to Rajinder Kaur, wife of respondent No. 2. The wife of the petitioner No. 1 has suffered 40% burn injuries whereas Rajinder Kaur, sustained fracture on the left leg. It was, thus, alleged that interference of respondent Nos. 1,5,6 and 7 into the peaceful possession of the petitioners is deliberate, intentional and willful and thus, the respondents have made themselves liable for proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

4. In reply, it has been pointed out that the writ petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed on 4.5.2006. The said order was passed on the basis of demarcation report dated 28.9.2005, which was carried out after the order was passed by the Director. It is also pointed out that vide Resolution dated 12.12.2003, the Panchyat has resolved to give the lands in dispute to the Public Health Department for providing water tank for the purposes of drinking water. In pursuance of the said Resolution, the officers of the State Government have approved the tender to carry out the digging of the tubewell in respect of which a contract was given to the contractor on 24.10.2005. Thus, it was pointed out that neither the State Government nor the Contractor was impleaded in the writ petition and, therefore, the work allotted to the contractor was carried out by the contractor as the order of the stay was not communicated to him.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that through interim order dated 7.11.2005 passed by this Court has come to an end with the dismissal of writ petition on 4.5.2006 but still the respondents are liable to be proceeded with for violation of the orders passed by this Court as they have carried out the digging operation in the disputed land even though dispossession of the petitioner was stayed. Reliance is placed upon decision of Honble Supreme Court in case reported as Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla V/s. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd.

6. Ha