Ram Nivas vs Sri Surjeet Singh, S.D.M. And ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 6060 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3292 of 2019
 

 
Applicant :- Ram Nivas
 
Opposite Party :- Sri Surjeet Singh, S.D.M. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tyagi
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel.

The applicant is before this Court against the wilful defiance of the interim order dated 12.3.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.3735 of 2019 (Ram Nivas v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which for ready reference is quoted as under:-

"Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Being aggrieved by the cancellation of the lease which was granted in favour of the petitioner, he had filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 55463 of 2016. This writ petition was allowed by the order dated 23.11.2016 and the matter was remanded to the respondent no. 2 wherein the Sub Divisional Magistrate was directed to consider the same afresh.

During the pendency of the matter with the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the respondents had started interfering with the possession of the petitioner.

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List thereafter.

Till the matter is decided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on 23.11.2016, status quo as of today shall be maintained."

In response to the order dated 23.05.2019, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has produced detailed instructions sent by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shamli and on the basis of the same he has contended that in the proceeding under Section 38 (2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 successive notices have been sent for adducing evidence in the matter but the applicant failed to do so and eventually the said proceeding has been finalised vide order dated 30.05.2019. The said order has also been brought on record along with the instructions.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the considered opinion that once proceeding in question itself has been finalised, there is no wilful defiance of the order in question. However, it is always open to the applicant to assail the validity of the order dated 30.05.2019 before the appropriate forum.

The contempt applicant stands disposed of accordingly. Notices, if any, stand discharged.

Order Date :- 9.7.2019

SP/