Suman Kumar Singh vs Sri Surendra Narayan Tripathi, Sdm And ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 16160 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Suman Kumar Singh vs Sri Surendra Narayan Tripathi, Sdm And ... on 8 May, 2024

Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:82830
 
Court No. - 51
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 8586 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Suman Kumar Singh
 
Opposite Party :- Sri Surendra Narayan Tripathi, Sdm And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Dubey,Vipul Kumar Dubey
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
 

The writ Court on 13.04.2022 while disposing off Writ-C No. 1855 of 2022 passed the following order;

"Heard Sri Vipul Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent no.2 to decide the Case No. T-20151506042029, under Section 29/41, U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (Suman Kumar and others vs. Rajendra Pratap Singh and others), within a stipulated period.

Pursuant to the previous order dated 31.03.2022 a report has been received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Azamgarh, wherein it has been stated that a team of the revenue officials was duly sent for carrying out the demarcation on 09.04.2022; however, in view of the standing crops the petitioner has given consent for carrying out the demarcation proceedings after twenty days.

Having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with an observation that the respondent no.2 would be expected to make an endeavour to decide the aforesaid case in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months after giving due notice and opportunity to all the parties concerned, provided there is no other legal impediment."

From perusal of the order passed by the writ Court, it is clear that the Court had disposed off the writ petition with an observation that the opposite party is expected to make an endeavour to decide the case in accordance with law.

The writ Court had only made an observation while disposing off the writ petition but no order or judgment was passed by the writ Court. However, a compliance affidavit has been filed by the State wherein in paragraph no. 11 it has been stated that on 03.01.2024 date was fixed for fixation of stone (pathargadi) though the applicant was not present on the spot, hence, on 05.01.2024 in presence of representative of the applicant the proceedings for change of possession of land was done. The copy of spot memo dated 05.01.2024 has been brought on record as annexure No. 5 to the compliance affidavit. As the writ Court had only observed while disposing off writ petition that an endeavour was to be made to decide the case in accordance with law which the authorities had done.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no such activity has been carried out, as stated in the compliance affidavit, and possession has not been handed over after demarcation.

This Court finds that civil contempt is defined under Section 2 (b) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the word "observation" does not find place in the said definition of civil contempt, as it is a wilful disobedience of the order, direction, judgment or undertaking. The writ Court had only observed while disposing off the writ petition that an endeavour was to be made by the opposite party to expedite the matter which the authorities had done and decided the case on 05.01.2024.

Contempt application is misconceived and dismissed, accordingly.

Contempt notice stands discharged. File consign to record.

Order Date :- 8.5.2024

Shekhar