Chandigarh, May 22 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has imposed a fine of Rs.6 lakh on Congress leader and Bholath MLA Sukhpal Singh Khaira for subjecting public officials to "unnecessary litigation" in a contempt case filed by him, alleging demolition of a portion of his ancestral property in February by local officials in Kapurthala. "The present petition constitutes a misuse of the process of the 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," the bench of justice Sudeepti Sharma observed while dismissing his plea. Khaira had alleged before the court that the demolition was carried out without adhering to the safeguards and procedural requirements mandated by the Supreme Court. "The respondents have acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner with the sole object of harassing and politically victimising the petitioner, who belongs to the opposition party," he had claimed. The government, in response, through an affidavit by block development and panchayat officer, Nadala, Kapurthala, Kulwinder Singh Randhawa, had maintained that the action undertaken by the authorities did not amount to a violation of the Supreme Court directions. The structure removed by the authorities constituted an encroachment over a public street/public passage vested in the gram panchayat and, therefore, fell within the exception carved out in the apex court judgment, the affidavit added. The court found that the apex court judgment - directions in the matter of demolition of structures passed in November 2024 consciously excluded from the ambit of the safeguards in those cases where unauthorised structures exist upon public streets, roads, footpaths, railway land, river bodies or other public utility areas. The court said that the material produced by the state authorities reveals prima facie that the land in question forms part of a public street/public passage vested in the gram panchayat, and records regarding complaints, etc., were also produced. "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 Supreme Court while conveniently overlooking the express exception carved out .regarding unauthorised structures existing upon public streets and public utility areas," the court observed, adding that the repeated references made in the petition to political rivalry, alleged harassment and registration of FIRs further demonstrate that the petitioner has sought to widen the scope of the proceedings far beyond the narrow confines of contempt jurisdiction. "Such an attempt to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court by employing ingenious drafting deserves serious disapproval," it added, noting that the apex court has time and again deprecated the growing tendency of litigants to misuse judicial proceedings through "clever drafting and by giving a misleading legal colour" to disputes which otherwise do not warrant the invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction. ".this court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case of wilful or intentional disobedience on the part of the respondents. On the contrary, the record prima facie establishes that the respondents acted in discharge of statutory duties for removal of alleged encroachment from public land/public passage. The controversy sought to be raised by the petitioner pertains essentially to the legality and propriety of such action, which cannot be adjudicated in contempt proceedings," the court observed. While imposing the cost, the court said that the time has come when not only deterrent costs must be imposed upon the official respondents but also upon the "frivolous litigants". "If, in cases of genuine disobedience, costs can be imposed upon officials and recovered from their salaries, there is no reason why, in cases of manifest abuse of process such as the present one, the erring petitioner should not be saddled with exemplary costs payable to the affected officials," it said, directing that respondents be paid in equal shares. The court also made it clear that in the event of default, the amount would be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue by the authorities....