Surya Kumar vs Kunwar Anupam Singh/ Superintendent Of ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 11864 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Surya Kumar vs Kunwar Anupam Singh/ Superintendent Of ... on 29 October, 2025

Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:67419-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
CONTEMPT APPEAL No. - 4 of 2025   
 
   Surya Kumar    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Kunwar Anupam Singh/ Superintendent Of Police Sultanpur And Ors.    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Suresh Kumar Upadhyay   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
Rahul Roshan Dubey   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 9
 
   
 
 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.  

HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Sri S.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Roshan Dubey has shown 'Vakalatnama' on behalf of opposite party no. 4, the same may be filed and uploaded.

2. In view of the proposed order notice to opposite parties no. 1to 3 and 5 to 10 are hereby dispensed with.

3. This contempt appeal has been filed through e-mode and learned counsel for the appellant has provided the photo copy of the hard copy, same is taken on record.

4. This is a contempt appeal filed u/s 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the judgment and order dated 08.10.2025 passed by this Court in CAPL No. 1138 of 2025, (Kallan alias Kallan Ali vs. Sri Kunwar Anupam Singh, Superintendent of Police, District Sultanpur and others).

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has firstly drawn attention of this Court towards order dated 16.4.2018 passed by this Court in Misc. Single No. 10929 of 2018 (Gaurishankar & Anr. vs. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad Division & Ors. which is the order for which the contempt petition was filed before the contempt court. The order dated 16.4.2018 reads as under :

"Sri Amitesh Pratap Singh,holding brief of Ms. Meera Jain, learned counsel has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.3 which is taken on record.

Issue notice to opposite party no.4.

Till the next date of listing the impugned orders insofar as the cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of opposite party no. 4 is concerned shall remain in abeyance."

6. Sri Upadhyay has stated that for the dispute in question one suit u/s 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed before the court of Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Sultanpur bearing Suit No. 17/39/16 (Gauri Shankar and others vs. Surya Kumar and others) relating to Gata No. 519 Area 2-6-5 and 1182 Area 0-11-4 situated at village Bandhua Kala, Tehsil Sadar, District Sultanpur. The prescribed authority rejected the aforesaid suit of Gauri Shankar and others vide judgment and order dated 15.7.2015. Thereafter Gauri Shankar and others filed appeals before the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Mandal u/s 331(3) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act bearing Appeal No. 278 / Sultanpur (Gaurishankar and others vs. Surya Kumar and others and Appeal No. 277 / Sultanpur (Suryakumar vs. Gaurishankar and others). The aforesaid appeals have been disposed of by the aforesaid appellate authority vide final order dated 3.4.2018 rejecting the Appeal No. 278 / Sultanpur (Gaurishankar and others vs. Suryakumar and others)and allowed the Appeal No. 277 / Sultanpur (Suryakumar v. Gauri Shankar and others ) setting aside the order dated 15.2.2015 directing that the appellant Suryakumar s/o Jagannath is declared the Bhumidhar of Gata No. 519 Area 2-6-5.

7. Sri Upadhyay has stated that the aforesaid appellate order has been passed in respect of Gata No. 519 and if the other side was aggrieved from the aforesaid order he could have filed second appeal u/s 208 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 but instead of filing second appeal the petitioner approached the writ court. Sri Upadhyay has further submitted that the specific objection regarding maintainability was taken before the writ court by filing counter affidavit and stay vacation application but no proper reply to that objection has been filed by the petitioner in the writ petition. It has further been stated that the writ court has stayed the impugned orders in so far as cancellation of sale-deed executed in favour of opposite party no. 4 of the writ petition ( Kallan ) is concerned.

8. By means of impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 3.4.2018 the reference of Gata No. 519 has been given and the present petitioner who is respondent no. 4 of the contempt petition had apprised the Court that he had executed four sale-deeds of total land of Gata no. 1182 including the land for which sale deed was executed by the Gauri Shankar in favour of Kallan.

9. Notably, in a finding of the Appellate Authority in an order dated 3.4.2018 it has been indicated that during the course of the consolidation proceedings the order dated 25.6.1977 and 21.1.1978 shown to the Appellate Authority were forged and fictitious and appellant Gauri Shankar and others may not get benefit of those orders for the reason that the aforesaid orders are forged and fictitious, therefore, the mutation pursuant to the aforesaid orders are misconceived.

10. The aforesaid facts may very well be tested by the second appellate court framing specific questions thereof but no second appeal was filed, therefore, no such questions could be framed by the appellate court. Undisputedly the writ court is having extraordinary jurisdiction to test the validity of any order being passed by the subordinate court or authority but if there is any statutory alternative remedy available in respect of disputed question of fact, that remedy, in our opinion, should be availed first.

11. In the order of the writ court the fact has not been clarified as to whether the aforesaid order dated 16.04.2018 would be applicable on both the gata numbers i.e. 519 and 1182 or only in respect of Gata no. 519.

12. As per our opinion the order being passed by the writ court needs modification / clarification so that the disobedience thereof, if any, may be tested by the contempt court properly.

13. Since the writ petition is still pending before the writ court and the question of maintainability of the writ petition would be tested and the another relevant question would be considered by the writ court as to whether the alleged orders dated 25.6.1977 passed by the Consolidation Officer and order dated 21.1.1978 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation are forged and fictitious or that finding of the Appellate Authority in his order dated 3.4.2018 is perverse. Unless both the aforesaid aspects are decided by the writ court we do not find that the conduct of the present appellant is contemptuous.

14. Sri Rahul Roshan Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 has stated that he has filed writ petition for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and he has also filed rejoinder affidavit against the objection being taken by the appellant in respect of maintainability of the writ petition and considering those aspects the contempt court has passed order dated 08.10.2025.

15. On being asked from Sri Dubey as to whether the question of maintainability of the writ petition has been decided by the writ court or not, Sri Dubey has fairly stated that till date no such order has been passed. On being further asked from Sri Dubey as to whether any finding has been given by this Court on the findings of the Appellate Court in respect of order dated 25.6.1977 passed by the Consolidation Officer and order dated 21.1.1978 passed by the Additional Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sri Dubey has stated that those aspects have not been dealt by the court as on date.

16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record as well as the order dated 8.10.2025 passed by the contempt court we are of the opinion that when a writ petition is still pending before the writ court wherein the objection regarding maintainability has been taken by the appellant which has not been decided by the writ court till date and the another aspect in respect of two gata numbers i.e. Gata nos. 519 and 1182 referred in the order of the Appellate Court dated 3.4.2018 and the specific finding of the Appellate Authority in respect of forged and fictitious orders dated 25.6.1977 and 21.1.1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation respectively have not been looked into and considered by the writ court, therefore, the present appellant should not be held guilty in a contempt proceedings at this stage. However, after final disposal of the writ petition pending before the writ court or after clarifying / modifying the interim order dated 16.4.2018 if any of the parties disobey the order of the writ court, any appropriate order may be passed in an appropriate proceedings. Therefore, on the aforesaid observation we hereby set aside / quash the order dated 8.10.2025 passed by the contempt court at this stage.

17. We hereby request the writ court to either modify / clarify the interim order dated 16.4.2018 or to dispose of the writ petition bearing Misc. Single No. 10929 of 2018 with expedition without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

18. In view of above, the contempt appeal is allowed.

19. It is needless to say that the contempt petitioner, Kallan @ Kallan Ali, may file appropriate application before the competent authority / writ court for redressal of his grievance.

20. Before parting with, we make it clear that though we have not entered into the merits of the case pending before the writ court but till the disposal of the writ petition the status-quo as on today in respect of the property in question shall be maintained by the parties.

(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

October 29, 2025

Om