Chandra Bhooshan Tripathi vs Rajesh Kumar Verma Tehsildar ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 14218 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1712 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Chandra Bhooshan Tripathi
 
Opposite Party :- Rajesh Kumar Verma Tehsildar Bikapur District Faizabad
 
Counsel for Applicant :- In Person,Manvendra Verma
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

Heard the petitioner, who appears in person.

Sri Manik Sinha, learned Senior Advocate, present in Court has graciously accepted to assist the petitioner.

The contention of the petitioner is that the writ Court vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2021 passed in P.I.L. No.30270 of 2021 in re: Chandra Bhooshan Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and others, had disposed of the petition after hearing the petitioner and permitted him to make a fresh and detailed application under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue code, 2006 (herein after referred to as Code, 2006) raising his grievances to the Assistant Collector, Tehsil Bikapur, District Ayodhya and the Assistant Collector was required to decide the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order within three months. It is submitted that as the matter under Section 67 of the Code 2006 had already been decided on 06.04.2016 yet no compliance of the order dated 06.04.2016 has been made till date.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel takes a preliminary objection that the order of the writ Court was for the petitioner to file an application under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 which he failed to file rather has approached this Court by filing a contempt petition alleging that despite the earlier order dated 06.04.2016 that had been passed by the competent authority for eviction of certain persons the said order has not been complied with. He further states that once the application under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 has not been filed consequently there cannot be any occasion for compliance of the judgment and order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the writ Court.

Responding to that, the petitioner states that as there was an earlier order dated 06.04.2016 as such he had approached the writ Court praying for compliance of the said order but the writ Court itself granted liberty to the petitioner to file proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 which admittedly have not been filed by him.

Considering the aforesaid more particularly when no proceedings under the Code, 2006 have been filed by the petitioner despite the specific order of the writ Court, it cannot be said that the respondent runs in contempt of the order passed by the writ Court. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. Notice, if any, stands discharged.

Irrespective of the contempt petition having been dismissed it would be open for the petitioner to pursue other remedy as may be available to him under law for his grievance.

Order Date :- 5.5.2023

A. Katiyar