Sunaina vs Vishak G And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 26437 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:186761
 
Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6214 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Sunaina
 
Opposite Party :- Vishak G And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Damodar Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

The writ Court on 15.07.2022 in Writ-C No.19342 of 2022 had passed the following order:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for following relief:

"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate Tehsil-Narbal to enquire the matter under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, rules 2016 as decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bholenath and Others v. State of U.P. and Others (2006)(7) ADJ 430 as well as in case of Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and Others( 2001) 6 SCC 496 in compliance the order demolish of illegal construction which is constructed on plot no. 204, on the Pokhara/ Talab, area 0.2990 hectare which is against the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court."

Learned Standing Counsel have raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy to approach revenue authority under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid legal position.

In view of above, this Court declines to interfere in the matter at this stage with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It is provided that in the event petitioner approaches the appropriate forum by moving application within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed by the concerned authority strictly in accordance with law by following the procedure as prescribed for under U.P.Revenue Code, 2006, and the Rules 2016 after affording full opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties within a further period of two months, strictly in accordance with law.

With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. "

From the perusal of the order passed by the writ Court, it is clear that the writ Court had declined to interfere in the matter.

As the writ Court had declined to interfere in the matter, no case for contempt is made out.

Contempt application is misconceived and the same stands dismissed.

Order Date :- 26.9.2023

SK Goswami