P&H High Court Imposes ₹6 Lakh Costs On Congress MLA Sukhpal Singh Khaira For Misusing Contempt Jurisdiction In Encroachment Dispute

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed Congress MLA Sukhpal Singh Khaira's contempt plea alleging illegal demolition, holding that contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked to adjudicate disputes relating to alleged encroachment on public land. The Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹6 lakh on him for misuse of judicial process.

Justice Sudeepti Sharma was dealing with a plea filed by Khaira, who alleged wilful disobedience of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures (2024), claiming that a portion of his ancestral property was demolished without following due process.

Khaira contended that the respondents had demolished a wall/gate forming part of his residential property without issuing prior notice or adhering to the procedural safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court. It was further alleged that the action was arbitrary and politically motivated.

Opposing the plea, the State submitted that the structure in question was an illegal encroachment over a public street vested in the Gram Panchayat. It argued that such cases fall within the exception carved out by the Supreme Court, where safeguards relating to demolition do not apply to unauthorized structures on public streets and public utility areas.

The Court noted that paragraph 91 of the Supreme Court's judgment explicitly excludes unauthorized structures on public streets, roads, and similar public utility areas from the requirement of prior notice and other procedural safeguards.

Upon examining the record, including reports of the Junior Engineer, entries in the Measurement Book, SVAMITVA records, and satellite imagery, the Court found prima facie evidence that the disputed land formed part of a public passage.

It observed that the petition had been “artfully and cleverly drafted” to give an impression of contempt, whereas the dispute essentially related to removal of encroachment from public property.

The Court further cautioned against attempts to cloak ordinary civil or administrative disputes as contempt proceedings, noting that such practices undermine the sanctity of judicial process.

"The pleadings reveal a conscious attempt to cloak an ordinary civil and administrative dispute with the colour of contempt proceedings by selectively invoking the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court while conveniently overlooking the express exception carved out in paragraph 91 of the said judgment with regard to unauthorized structures existing upon public streets and public utility areas," it added.

On Misuse of Contempt Jurisdiction

Emphasising the limited scope of contempt powers, the Court held that such jurisdiction cannot be used as an alternative forum to settle personal, political, or administrative disputes. It reiterated that courts must examine the substance of pleadings rather than their form to prevent abuse of process.

Relying on cases including Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, the Court deprecated the growing trend of frivolous and vexatious litigation.

"It is now well settled 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, and not to provide litigants with an alternate forum for ventilating grievances which are otherwise amenable to ordinary statutory remedies," the Court observed.

Finding no wilful disobedience by the authorities, the Court dismissed the petition and imposed costs of ₹6,00,000 on the petitioner, to be paid to the respondents in equal shares.

"This Court is, therefore, constrained to hold that the present petition constitutes a misuse of the process of Court and reflects an attempt to invoke contempt jurisdiction for purposes alien to its true object and scope. Such petitions not only consume precious judicial time but also subject public officials to unnecessary litigation despite their having acted in purported discharge of statutory obligations," it said.

The Court directed that in case of default, the amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mehtab Khaira, Advocate

Mr. Himmat Singh Sidhu, Advocate Mr. Mohobat Sandhu, Advocate Ms. Mannat Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anu Chathrath, Sr. Addl. Advocate General, Punjab with Mr. Ravneet S. Joshi, DAG, Punjab for respondents.

Title: SUKHPAL SINGH v. AMIT PANCHAL, IAS AND ORS.

Click here to read order