##PAGE1##

COCP-1729-2018 (O&M)(cid:1) Page 1 of 6

(cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

210

COCP-1729-2018 (O&M)

Date of decision: 28.04.2026

Arun Khanna

...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Sudha Khanna & Others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate

for respondents No.1 to 4.

Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate

for respondents No.5 & 6.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Contempt Petition has been filed alleging violation of

order dated 05.07.2012 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Assistant

Collector, 1^st Grade, Amritsar, whereby despite the proceedings on the

Mutation No.28887 having been adjourned sine die; mutation has been

entered in the name of the private parties.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite

the clear direction of the Assistant Collector to adjourn the proceedings on the

Mutation No.28887 sine die yet in the Jamabandi for the year 2015-16

SUNENA

2026.04.30 11:27

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

(cid:1)

COCP-1729-2018 (O&M)(cid:1) Page 2 of 6

(cid:1)

(Annexure P5) the respondents No.1 to 4 in gross defiance and disobedience

of the orders passed by the learned Assistant Collector in their presence and

upon taking their consent in connivance with respondents No.5 and 6 illegally

got the Mutations reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 2015-16 (Annexure

P5). Learned counsel submits that in the absence of any judgment having been

passed by any competent Civil Court, respondents No.5 and 6 were not legally

competent to allow the reflection of the Mutations in favour of the

respondents No.1 to 4 as the same have not been legally served and/or

approved. This is especially so as in the Jamabandi for the year 2010-11 (P-4),

it is specifically mentioned that the mutation 28887 has been adjourned, sine

die. Thus, the aforesaid action of the respondents amounts to wilful

disobedience of the order dated 05.07.2012 (Annexure P1 to P3). Thus, the

respondents have committed contempt of Court and made themselves liable

for punishment.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 and

6 has submitted that as reflected in Annexure P5, the said Mutation was served

in favour of the respondents No.1 to 4 on the basis of a duly registered

Compromise dated 14.12.1946 entered into between the parties. Thus, there

was no willful disobedience on part of the said respondents. It is submitted

that at best, it was an inadvertent error. In any event, it has now come to the

notice of respondent No.5 that in Jamabandi for the year 2010-11 (Annexure

P4) it is mentioned that the said Mutation through partition between the

SUNENA

2026.04.30 11:27

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

(cid:1)

COCP-1729-2018 (O&M)(cid:1) Page 3 of 6

(cid:1)

respondents No.1 to 4 has been rejected by the Assistant Collector vide order

dated 05.07.2012 and the Mutation has been adjourned sine die in order to

verify the veracity of the alleged Compromise dated 14.12.1946.

4. It is further pointed out that in the meantime, the respondent

No.5 has retired. Moreover, the petitioner has filed an application for

correction of the Mutation entry. It is reiterated that the same was therefore,

a bona fide mistake and there was no wilful disobedience on part of the

respondent No.5.

5. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard

learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the

submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is prima facie unable to deny

the above-said facts. No doubt, in the Jamabandi for the year 2015-16

(Annexure P5), the mutation no. 28887 is reflected despite the order dated

5.7.2012. However, it is admitted by the petitioner that an application has

been filed by the petitioner for correction of the said Mutation entry.

7. Moreover, petitioner has been unable to make out any

connivance amongst the respondents as alleged. The petitioner