Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1808/2026 on 3 November 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1 ( 2026:HHC:48577 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No. 1808 of 2026
Decided on: 03.11.2026 ________________________________________________ Surjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus
Jatin Lal & Anr. …Respondents _
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Kumar Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge (oral) The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for the alleged willful disobedience of order dated 13.10.2025, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 41 of 2017.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 ( 2026:HHC:48577 ) respondents and have also gone through the records, carefully.
3. On 13.10.2025, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order:- “…………
10. Accordingly, in light of above observations, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders i.e. Annexure P-4 dated 30.04.2015, Annexure P-12 dated 27.09.2016 and Annexure P-13 dated 18.11.2016 are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner and in case the petitioner is eligible for the allotment of the land, that is to say that it if he falls within the same parameters as those legal representatives of deceased land owners, who later on were allotted the land, then let needful be done in favour of the petitioner also. Needful be done within 2 months.”
4. Thereafter again, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing contempt petition, which was registered as COPC No. 750 of 2026 and the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.08.2026 disposed of the same by observing as under:- “3. In view of submissions made by learned Deputy Advocate General, present proceedings are closed. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. Fresh consideration order in consonance with directions issued, in letter & spirit of Surjit Singh be now passed within four weeks. Copy of order be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
3 ( 2026:HHC:48577 )
5. Pursuant to the directions passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in COPC No. 750 of 2026, respondent No. 1 has passed a detailed speaking order, wherein, it has been stated that in compliance to the directions passed by this Court, the claim of the petitioner for fresh allotment of the land earlier alloted to his father, late Sh. Ram Piara is hereby rejected, as the petitioner has failed to prove his entitlement or eligibility for such re-allotment under the applicable provisions of the H.P. Village Common Land Vesting & Utilization Scheme, 1975 and instructions dated 13.09.2002.
6. Since pursuant to the directions passed by the respective Coordinate Benches of this Court, a speaking order has been passed, therefore, no case for contempt of Court is made out, as such, the present contempt petition is dismissed.
7. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy, as available to him under the law, if he is still aggrieved.
4 ( 2026:HHC:48577 ) Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
( Sushil Kukreja )
3rd November, 2026 Judge (raman)