Allahabad High Court
Abhishek Singh vs Sri Heera Lal, Sub Divisional ... on 4 February, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 146 of 2022
Applicant :- Abhishek Singh
Opposite Party :- Sri Heera Lal, Sub Divisional Magistrate Colonelganj And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Pathak
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. On account of the prevailing Covid-19 pandemic, this case has been taken up through video conferencing.
2. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for applicant.
3. By means of the present contempt petition, it is submitted that by means of judgment and order dated 20.01.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 336 (MB) of 2021 has not been complied with by the respondents and hence the present contempt petition has been filed.
4. It has been submitted that by means of order dated 20.01.2021, two directions were issued. The first direction is contained as under:
"1. In view of the aforesaid, we feel it appropriate to direct the Sub.Divisional Officer concerned to demarcate the land of Khasra plot no. 2088 Sa (M), which according to the petitioner, is recorded as petitioner's Bhoomdhari with transferable rights in the revenue records.
The said demarcation shall be done by the Sub.Divisional Officer concerned in accordance with the area of the plot recorded in the Khatuani as well as in the revenue map within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this order and accordingly the petitioner shall be put in possession over his land.
While demarcating the plot in question, the provisions contained in Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 readwith Rule 22 of the Rules framed thereunder shall be observed."
5. While in the second direction, it was provided as under:-
"2. It is further directed that if encroachment over Gaon Sabha land is found, the same shall also be removed by initiating proceedings under section 67 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006."
6. With regard to the direction contained in direction No. 1, learned counsels for petitioner submits that a compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and Smt. Ranwant Kaur and consequently dispute of demarcation was withdrawn by the petitioner himself and consequently the direction issued with regard to demarcation stood satisfied by the conduct of the petitioner/applicant himself.
7. With regard to second direction issued in direction No. 2, it was provided that the encroachment over the gaon sabha land is found the same shall also be removed by initiating proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Land Reuven Code.
8. It is stated that by the applicant that proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code are pending before the concerned Tehsildar and proceedings for removal of encroachment shall ensue only after culmination of proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue code where the final order has to be passed after issuing notices to all the concerned person and hearing the alleged encroachers.
9. In light of the above, it is clear that for direction No. 1, nothing further was to be done by the authority concerned as the parties have compromised and with regard to the direction No. 2, the proceeding under Section 67 of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 are still pending and therefore in light of the above, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated the order of the writ court court at this stage.
10. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merits in the case and the contempt petition is dismissed at this stage.
11. However, in case the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the stopping of construction then he has a right to approach the competent court/ competent authority for redressal of his grievances.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 4.2.2022
Ravi/
