Dismissed

Ratan Singh v. Ekta Singh, S.D.M. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2020CAPL/3493/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt application for direction to initiate proceedings for willful disobedience of an interim order regarding land patta cancellation, the court observed that allegations were against private incumbents. The court declined to initiate contempt proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, leaving the applicant to approach the Writ Court. The application was finally dis

What did the court decide?

Contempt application conceptually dismissed; no direction to initiate proceedings against opposite parties.

Ratan Singh Vs Ekta Singh, S.D.M. and 2 Others — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3493 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ratan Singh Opposite Party :- Ekta Singh, S.D.M. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶6

The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceedings against the opposite parties for willful disobedience of the interim order dated 5.4.2019 passed in Writ C No. 11711 of 2019 (Ratan Singh Vs. State of U.P. And 5 Others). For ready reference, the order dated 5.4.2019 is quoted as under:-

¶7

"After a proposal dated 15.10.1970 in which 61 individuals were granted pattas, an application was filed by the respondents no. 5 and 6 for the cancellation of the pattas. Thereafter, an order was passed on 19.2.2015 by the Collector which was affirmed by the Revisional Court on 21.2.2019. Against these orders the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the instant proceedings were initiated proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, were undergone and finalized and all the pattas of all 61 individuals were found to be absolutely in order. He further submits that out of 2.25 acres of land when it was found that only 0.20 acres of land was pond then the whole patta could not have been cancelled. Still further learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when certain family members were having agricultural land then it could not mean that the petitioner was not a landless person.

¶9

Still further learned counsel for the petitioner submits that consolidation proceedings had intervened and no issue with regard to pattas were raised therein then now the pattas could not have been cancelled by the impugned order.

¶10

Matter requires consideration.

¶11

Issue notice to the respondents no. 5 and 6. Steps be taken within ten days.

¶12

The respondents may file their counter affidavits within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of two weeks, thereafter.

¶13

Until further order, the effect and operation of the order dated 21.2.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 and the order dated 19.2.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3 shall remain stayed. "

¶14

Bare perusal of the representation dated 18.6.2019 (Annexure No. 3 to the contempt application) moved by the applicant, it appears that the entire allegations have been levelled against the private incumbents who were in possession over the land in question.

¶15

In the facts and circumstances, the Court is not inclined to proceed against the opposite parties under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, it is always open to the applicant to press the relief before the Writ Court.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, the contempt application is finally disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 9.11.2020 A.K.Srivastava

Ratan Singh v. Ekta Singh, S.D.M. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Singh v. Ekta Singh, S.D.M. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Phool Badan Chauhan Vs Sri Raghwendra Singh, Assistant Collector/S.D.M

Dr. Krishan Prakash Srivastava Vs Amit Mohan Prasad, Principal Secretary/ Chief Secretary

Jai Prakash Mishra Vs Praveen Kumar Tiwari, District Basic Education Officer

Enchant Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Manoj Kumar Singh, Principle Secretary and Another

Satyendra Goswami @ Kishan Vs Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad and Another

Manju Yadav Vs Smt. Vineeta Yadav, Examination Controller, Prof. Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiya) University