In a contempt application alleging destruction of standing crops and violation of an injunction, the court noted that while the crops were destroyed, the applicant was not evicted and the injunction explicitly did not prohibit such acts. The petition was dismissed accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 59
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1323 of 2018
Applicant :- Prakash Opposite Party :- Sangeeta Ji, Sub Divisional Officer/ Magistrate And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Mohan,Prem Sagar Verma
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Shri Narendra Mohan, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri P.D. Tripathi, the learned Standing Counsel who has appeared for the opposite party.
On 24 December 1987, the Court while entertaining the challenge to an order passed in proceedings under Section 122B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 had placed in abeyance the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Additional Collector. These orders admittedly had directed the eviction of the applicant from what was claimed to be public utility land. The allegation made in this petition was that although the writ petition has been restored and the interim order continued to operate, the opposite parties had interfered in the possession of the applicant and had also destroyed the agricultural crops.
From the affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2 the Court notes that a stand has been taken that although an anti encroachment drive was undertaken, the land of the applicant was not disturbed. This fact is vehemently opposed by Shri Mohan, the learned counsel for the applicant who has referred to various photographs to contend that his crops were in fact destroyed.
Be that as it may, the Court notes that it is not the allegation of the applicant that he has been evicted from the plot in question or that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector have been
enforced. All that is alleged, as noted above, is that the standing crop was destroyed. While this allegation may give rise to the applicant to contend that the opposite parties has committed the offence of criminal trespass but the same cannot possibly be said to be in violation of the injunction of the Court.
Consequently this petition shall stand disposed of. Notices shall stand discharged.
Order Date :- 9.5.2018 nethra
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the alleged destruction of standing crops on public utility land violates the court injunction.
Whether the matter requires intervention by this court.
Prakash
Sangeeta Ji
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
