M.M.S. Bedi, J.@mdashVide order dated February 21, 2011, a direction was issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court to the Commissioner,
Patiala Division to constitute an Inquiry Committee comprising officers posted outside District Patiala for a fact finding inquiry to determine the
allegations of the petitioner that he was being ousted in an unauthorized manner from the premises of Shiv Mandir in Village Kehri Gujran, near
Officers Colony, Patiala. Aggrieved by the non-compliance of the order, the petitioner filed a contempt petition No. 1614 of 2011 in which a
report regarding the status of the inquiry was directed to be placed on record on May 3, 2012. It appears that the matter having been
compromised vide annexure P-8, the petitioner had withdrawn the contempt petition.
2. The present contempt petition has been filed complaining about interference by the private respondents.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the order dated February 21, 2011 and the subsequent events and I am of the
opinion that vide order dated February 21, 2011, no absolute right was conferred upon the petitioner, however, as an interim measure his
possession in the Mandir had been protected simultaneously directing the Commissioner to constitute an Inquiry Committee to conduct a fact
finding inquiry by joining the petitioner. The report was required to be prepared and submitted before the Court. The said report was submitted in
the Court probably in favour of the petitioner. Report dated December 7, 2011 was prepared and submitted in the Court but a copy of the same
has not been placed on record but counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the report in the Court which indicates that possession of the
petitioner stands established from the said report. The allegations of consumption of liquor and meat have been found to be false against the
petitioner. There are certain observations against the son of the petitioner namely, Dinesh Mishra.
4. The private respondents seem to be having a controversy with the petitioner. The remedy available with the petitioner is to protect his
possession and restrain anyone from dispossessing him in an illegal manner by establishing that he has got a better possessory title and right to
remain in possession and enjoy uninterrupted possession of the portion in his occupation in the Shiv Mandir aforesaid. The circumstances do not
warrant initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents at this stage as the SSP, Patiala has already been directed to provide adequate
security to the petitioner and his family and the temple properties vide order dated February 21, 2011 which has been made absolute vide order
dated March 17, 2011. Relegating the petitioner to avail any other alternative remedy available to him, this petition is disposed of as not
maintainable. In case any of the private respondents violates the terms of compromise annexure P-8, it will be open to the petitioner to seek the
performance of the acts compromised by the private respondents.