Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Contempt Petition Over Demolition of Gate on Gram Panchayat Street, Imposes Costs
Justice Sudeepti Sharma dismissed a contempt petition alleging violation of Supreme Court’s demolition directions, finding the structure stood on a public street expressly excluded from those safeguards.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has dismissed a contempt petition filed by Sukhpal Singh against Amit Panchal, IAS and other State officials, who were accused of demolishing a wall and gate forming part of the petitioner’s ancestral residential property without following the procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures (2025 (5) SCC 1). Justice Sudeepti Sharma, sitting singly, held that the demolished structure stood on a public street vested in Gram Panchayat Ramgarh, District Kapurthala, a category that the Supreme Court itself had expressly excluded from those directions in paragraph 91 of that judgment. The petition was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs 6,00,000, to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents in equal shares.
The Contempt Petition and the Petitioner’s Case
Sukhpal Singh filed the contempt petition, COCP-1053-2026, alleging that State authorities had demolished a portion of the wall and gate of his ancestral property without serving any prior notice and without adhering to the procedural requirements mandated by the Supreme Court in Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, decided on 13 November 2024.
Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr Baltej Singh Sidhu, argued that no notice whatsoever was served before the demolition and that the action was driven by political motives, the petitioner belonging to an opposition party. The petition also referred to political rivalry, alleged harassment, and registration of FIRs, seeking to place the demolition in the context of targeted victimisation.
The respondents were represented by Mr Anu Chathrath, Senior Additional Advocate General, Punjab, along with Mr Ravneet S. Joshi, DAG, Punjab.
The Supreme Court’s Demolition Directions and the Public Street Exception
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 with connected matters) issued a detailed set of procedural safeguards before any demolition can be carried out. These include a prior show cause notice returnable within 15 days of service, service by registered post with acknowledgement due and affixation on the structure, a personal hearing before a designated authority, a reasoned final order, a 15-day window after the final order before any demolition is executed, video recording of the demolition proceedings, and a demolition report forwarded to the Municipal Commissioner.
Paragraph 91 of that judgment, however, opens with a clear carve-out: the directions “will not be applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies.” Structures on public streets and public utility areas are thus outside the protective framework entirely.
Justice Sharma reproduced paragraphs 90 through 99 of the Supreme Court’s judgment in full and held that a bare reading of paragraph 91 makes it abundantly clear that the Supreme Court consciously excluded such structures from the ambit of the safeguards. Before invoking contempt jurisdiction, the High Court was therefore required to determine whether the structure in question fell within that exempted category.
The Respondents’ Documentary Record
In response to the contempt petition, the respondents filed an affidavit dated 22 April 2026 sworn by Kulwinder Singh Randhawa, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Nadala, District Kapurthala. The affidavit set out a detailed administrative trail.
A written complaint was submitted on 4 February 2026 by Baldev Singh, Member, Gram Panchayat Ramgarh, and others, stating that a gate had been illegally installed in a public street by Sukhpal Singh Khaira and Kulbir Singh Khaira, allegedly with the connivance of the Sarpanch, obstructing free movement of villagers. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer directed a Junior Engineer, Ranjit Singh, to conduct a site inspection. His report dated 13 February 2026, along with a site map, confirmed that the street had red bricks laid by the Gram Panchayat and connected one village street to another, functioning as a common public passage.
Measurement Book No. 115 of Gram Panchayat Ramgarh, at page 3, recorded by the then Junior Engineer in 2009, confirmed that the street was constructed by the Gram Panchayat by laying red bricks. The total length of the street was recorded as 120 feet and the width as 14 feet 11 inches. Records under the SVAMITVA Scheme of village Ramgarh, attested by the CRO, Bholath, showed Road ID No. R003 (748.119 sq. mtr.) and R004 (211.964 sq. mtr.) as public passage/Panchayati land, totalling 960.083 sq. mtr. Satellite imagery from Google Earth for 2012 and 2022 depicted the land as an open public street with brick flooring, while 2025 imagery showed subsequent encroachment by raising a wall and gate.
The Block Development and Panchayat Officer had also issued notices to the Sarpanch on 11 February 2026 (letter No. 1170) and 18 February 2026 (letter No. 1172) directing removal of the encroachment. The Sarpanch refused to accept both notices and declined to pass any resolution for removal. The officer then, vide letter No. 4341 dated 27 February 2026, requested the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Kapurthala, to initiate proceedings for removal of the Sarpanch under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
The Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, exercising powers under Section 199 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, issued notice and afforded a hearing to all concerned parties. By order dated 2 April 2026, the Director set aside and cancelled the resolution dated 26 June 2025 passed by Gram Panchayat Ramgarh, recording a categorical finding that the disputed passage is a public street constructed by the Gram Panchayat, used by the general public, and that the installation of the gate amounted to an illegal obstruction capable of impeding emergency services such as ambulance, fire brigade, and police. The Director also noted that there is no provision under Section 32 of the Act permitting closure of a public path.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Sharma found that the respondents had produced substantial documentary evidence to prima facie establish that the land in question forms part of a public street vested in the Gram Panchayat. The complaints, the Junior Engineer’s report, the Measurement Book entries, the SVAMITVA records, the satellite imagery, and the quasi-judicial order of the Director collectively pointed in one direction: the structure was an encroachment on a public passage, squarely within the exception in paragraph 91 of the Supreme Court’s judgment.
The Court went further and examined the character of the petition itself. Justice Sharma held that the petition had been “artfully and cleverly drafted” to give an impression of violation of the Supreme Court’s demolition directions, whereas the substance of the dispute was the legality of administrative action for removal of an encroachment from public property. The pleadings reflected a conscious attempt to cloak an ordinary civil and administrative dispute with the colour of contempt proceedings by selectively invoking the Supreme Court’s directions while overlooking the express exception in paragraph 91.
The references to political rivalry, alleged harassment, and FIRs were seen as an attempt to widen the scope of the proceedings far beyond the narrow confines of contempt jurisdiction. The Court observed that such an attempt to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction through ingenious drafting deserves serious disapproval.
Justice Sharma relied on the Court’s earlier decision in Payal Chaudhary v. KAP Sinha, IAS and Others (COCP-3579-2025, decided 24 July 2025), which had itself drawn on the Supreme Court’s observations in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2010) 2 SCC 114, Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470, and K.C. Tharakan v. State Bank of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 27458/2022). Those decisions had deprecated litigants who resort to falsehood and unethical means, and had emphasised that courts must examine the substance of pleadings rather than the form in which they are couched.
The Court held that contempt jurisdiction cannot be permitted to become a tool for settling personal, political, or administrative disputes. The extraordinary power vested in constitutional courts is intended to uphold the majesty of law and ensure compliance with judicial orders, not to provide litigants with an alternate forum for grievances amenable to ordinary statutory remedies.
Justice Sharma also addressed the question of costs directly. The Court reasoned that if costs can be imposed on officials and recovered from their salaries in cases of genuine disobedience, there is no reason why, in cases of manifest abuse of process, the erring petitioner should not be saddled with exemplary costs payable to the affected officials. The Court held that the time had come to impose deterrent costs not only on officials in genuine contempt cases but also on litigants who misuse the process.
Order
The contempt petition was dismissed with costs of Rs 6,00,000 (Rupees Six Lakhs only). The amount is to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents in equal shares. The respondents are directed to furnish their respective bank account details to the petitioner, who must remit the amount directly into their accounts. In the event of default, the amount is to be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue by the competent authority. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of. The order was pronounced on 21 May 2026.