Kedar Nath vs Sri Uttam Tiwari, Sub Divisional ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5373 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Kedar Nath vs Sri Uttam Tiwari, Sub Divisional ... on 21 February, 2025

Author: Manish Kumar

Bench: Manish Kumar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11290
 
Court No. - 17
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4837 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Kedar Nath
 
Opposite Party :- Sri Uttam Tiwari, Sub Divisional Officer (Judicial), Sultanpur
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Singh Chauhan,Hanumant Lal Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Prabhakar Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
 

1. The present contempt application has been filed for alleged non compliance of the judgment and order dated 25.10.2024. The relevant extract of the said order is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.1 to consider and finally decide the pending proceedings of recall application dated 04.10.2024 bearing Case No.RST-70852024; Computerized Case no.T202404680407085 for recall of the order dated 31.07.2024 passed in Case no.04444 of 2024 (Computerized Case no.T-202404680404444) filed under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as expeditiously as possible, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of."

2. During the course of argument, Sri Prabhakar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent has provided a copy of order dated 26.12.2024 whereby recall application has been decided in compliance of the judgment and order passed by the writ court. The same is taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has not disputed that the recall application has been decided as directed by the writ court but has submitted that till date no further action has been taken for removing the demarcation made.

4. On being asked whether this Court had issued any direction for removing encroachment, learned counsel for the applicant has replied that there was no direction by the writ court for removing encroachment. The judgment and order passed by the writ court has been complied with as recall application has been decided by the respondent.

5. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the present contempt application has become infructuous and the same is dismissed.

6. Notice, if any, stands discharged.

Order Date :- 21.2.2025

Renu/-