In a contempt application, the single judge held that since the respondent counsel explicitly stated compliance with the writ court order, no cause of action survives, and the application is disposed of without substantive adjudication on the land dispute.
No relief granted. The application disposed of due to no cause of action surviving.
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. - 5
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3391 of 2012
Applicant :- Ashutosh Gupta Opposite Party :- Raj Kumar Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Gupta In Person,Amrendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.,Ajay Singh
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Undisputedly, one Smt. Vidyawati, mother of the opposite party, i.e. Raj Kumar, was the owner of entire khasra plot Nos.1162 and 1211 situate in a village Kasri Masari, Tehsil Sadar, District Prayagraj. Area of plot No.1211 was 5246 square yards, out of which the aforesaid owner Vidyawati sold 400 square yard land to Sri Kunj Bihari Lal Gupta (father of the applicant herein) by a registered sale deed dated 01.05.1984. In the sale deed, the boundaries of the plot purchased by the father of the applicant from the mother of the respondent, are mentioned as under:-
North: plot of others
South: Petrol pipe and road
East: plot of Shanti Devi
West: Road 20 feet
Some dispute with respect to their possession over part portion of khasra plot No.1211 sold under the aforesaid sale deed, arose between the applicant Ashutosh Gupta and the respondent Raj Kumar. In Civil Misc. Criminal Writ Petition No.7605 of 2012 (Raj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others), Writ Court passed the following order:
"The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record, stating that the petitioner will not cause any hindrance or obstruction in the peaceful possession of the respondent no.4 with regard to the part of Plot No.1211, which has been purchased by him.
The learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has filed a short counter affidavit, which is also taken on record.
The petitioner may file reply to the short counter affidavit within two weeks.
List on 17.7.2012 before the appropriate Court.
In view of the fact that the respondent no.4 is represented and has already filed a short counter affidavit and further in view of the fact that the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that he would not cause any obstruction in the peaceful possession of the respondent no.4 over his plot, as described in the sale deed, the arrest of the petitioner in Case Crime No.221/2012, under Sections 147, 148, 352, 504, 506, 419, 420, 427, 386 IPC, P.S. Dhooman Gang, District Allahabad shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.
It is further provided that the respondent no.4 shall not encroach upon any land other than the plot purchased as mentioned in the sale deed in his favour and further shall not cause any obstruction or hindrance in Plot No.1162 ."
This contempt application has been filed by the applicant Ashutosh Gupta against the respondent Raj Kumar with the allegation that the respondent has wilfully disobeyed the order of the writ court dated 22.06.2012 by interfering in the possession of the applicant in respect of the plot, purchased by his father under the aforesaid sale deed dated 01.05.1984 and in respect of which mutation order dated 18.10.1989 in Case No.37 of 1989-90 under Section 34
of the L.R. Act was passed by the Tehsildar, Chail, Allahabad.
Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Raj Kumar states on instructions that the respondent is strictly complying with the order of the writ court dated 22.06.2012 and is not interfering with the possession of the applicant in plot in question measuring 400 square yards, sold by his mother under the aforesaid sale deed dated 01.05.1984 containing particulars of boundaries as mentioned above.
Since a clear statement has been made by the learned counsel for the respondent on behalf of the respondent as aforenoted that, that the respondent is not interfering with the possession of the applicant in 400 square yards land sold under the aforesaid sale deed, therefore, no cause of action now survives in the present contempt application. If any encroachment of the respondent is still existing over the plot in dispute, then it shall be removed by him forthwith in view of his statement recorded by the writ court in the order dated 22.06.2012 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.7605 of 2012 (Raj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others) with respect to the plot in question purchased by the father of the applicant by a registered sale deed dated 01.05.1984.
The contempt application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.11.2019 NLY
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent has committed contempt of court by disobeying the writ court order dated 22.06.2012 by interfering in the applicant's possession.
Whether a cause of action survives in the present contempt application given the respondent's claim of compliance.
Whether the applicant's father's mutation order is relevant to the dispute regarding possession of the specified plot.
Ashutosh Gupta
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
