Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes ₹6 Lakh Costs for “Cleverly Drafted” Contempt Petition Over Demolition of Alleged Encroachment on Panchayat Street

Case Name: Sukhpal Singh v. Amit Panchal, IAS and Others

Date of Judgment: 21 May 2026

Citation: COCP-1053-2026

Bench: Justice Sudeepti Sharma

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that demolition of alleged encroachment from a public street/public passage falls within the exception carved out by the Supreme Court in the demolition guidelines case and therefore does not amount to contempt. The Court further held that contempt jurisdiction cannot be misused to convert political or administrative disputes into proceedings alleging violation of judicial orders. Finding the petition to be a misuse of process through “artful and clever drafting,” the Court dismissed the petition with exemplary costs of ₹6 lakh.

Summary: The contempt petition alleged wilful disobedience of directions issued by the Supreme Court in Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures concerning demolition of structures without following procedural safeguards. The petitioner claimed that a portion of the wall and gate forming part of his ancestral residential property was demolished without issuance of notice or adherence to the safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court.

The State authorities opposed the petition contending that the action pertained solely to removal of illegal encroachment over a public street/public passage belonging to Gram Panchayat Ramgarh. It was argued that paragraph 91 of the Supreme Court judgment specifically excluded unauthorized structures standing on public roads, streets, footpaths and public utility areas from the scope of the safeguards issued therein.

The High Court reproduced the detailed safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court regarding demolition of structures and particularly noted the express exception contained in paragraph 91 relating to encroachments on public streets and public utility areas.

The Court examined the affidavit filed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer along with documentary material including complaints by villagers, reports of the Junior Engineer, Measurement Book entries, SVAMITVA records and Google Earth imagery. The material prima facie established that the disputed structure existed over a public street/public passage vested in the Gram Panchayat and obstructed public movement.

The Court observed that the petition had been “artfully and cleverly drafted” to create an impression of violation of the Supreme Court’s demolition guidelines while deliberately overlooking the explicit exception applicable to encroachments on public property. The Court further noted that repeated references to political rivalry and harassment demonstrated an attempt to widen the scope of contempt proceedings far beyond their legitimate contours.

Strongly criticising misuse of judicial proceedings, the Court reiterated that contempt jurisdiction cannot become a tool for settling personal, political or administrative disputes. Reliance was placed upon decisions including Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and K.C. Tharakan v. State Bank of India dealing with abuse of process and frivolous litigation.

The High Court held that the respondents had acted in discharge of statutory duties relating to removal of alleged encroachment from public land and that the legality of such action could not be adjudicated within contempt jurisdiction. The Court emphasised that frivolous petitions consume valuable judicial time and unnecessarily drag public officials into litigation despite their discharge of statutory obligations.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the contempt petition with exemplary costs of ₹6,00,000 payable by the petitioner to the respondents in equal shares. The Court further directed that in case of default, the amount shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue.