RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,J. - (1.) This petition is filed for the alleged violation/disobedience of the order dated 19.8.2002. In short, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against respondents No.1 to 3 alleging that the suit land was ancestral and has never been partitioned but the respondents have obtained a collusive decree in their favour which was not binding on his rights. The suit was dismissed on 6.12.2001 but civil appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed on 5.6.2002, holding that the property in dispute was ancestral and the collusive decree was bad in law because the petitioner was not a party to it. The judgment dated 5.6.2002 of the Appellate Court was challenged by the respondents by way of RSA No.3432 of 2002 in which notice of motion was issued on 19.8.2002 for 28.10.2002 and parties were directed to maintain status-quo regarding the land in dispute till further orders.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents started collecting bricks and other construction material on the land in dispute after the order of status-quo without seeking any modification therein and started raising construction. He made a complaint to the SHO, Police Station Kundli, but no action was then. Then he made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 2.7.2015. It is alleged that though the police visited the site but no action was taken on the ground that the matter involved was of the civil nature. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
(3.) During the course of hearing, following order was recorded by this Court on 25.7.2016 :- "This petition is filed for disobedience of the order dated 19.8.2002 whereby the parties were directed to maintain statusquo regarding the land in dispute. "Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at that time, the land was lying vacant. However, the respondents have allegedly starting raising construction after the order was passed, therefore, the present petition has been filed for proceeding against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. "On the other hand, the respondents in their reply have alleged that the photographs appended by the petitioner do not connect the construction to the land in question and it is also not proved that the said construction has been raised after the stay was granted. He has also submitted that in Annexures P.3 and P.4, the complaint made to the police authorities, the petitioner has admitted that the houses of the respondents were already there on the land in question whereas according to the petitioner, the respondents have raised construction of the shops after the order was passed by this Court. In order to resolve the factual dispute, it is suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner to appoint a Local Commissioner to inspect the spot in order to verify as to whether the construction has been raised in the land in dispute recently. This suggestion is not opposed by counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, this Court appoints Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, Advocate, as Local Commissioner to visit the spot and to report as to whether the construction has been raised by the respondents on the land in question after 19.8.2002. The petitioner may take the help in this regard from the concerned Tehsildar and also the concerned SHO by serving a notice of her visit to the place in question. The petitioner shall pay L 33,000/- as fee of the Local Commissioner and L 5,000/- towards expenses. In case, the contention of the petitioner is found to be correct by this Court, then this amount, now paid by the petitioner shall be paid by the respondents besides facing other liabilities which may incur because of the non-obedience of the order passed by this Court. Adjourned to 22.8.2016." ;