Dismissed

Ved Ram Sharma v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2020WRIC/11021/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking compliance of a Board of Revenue stay order. The court held that since the contempt application filed for enforcing the order was dismissed by this Court, no further relief could be granted in the writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petitioner's right to approach the Board of Revenue remains intact.

Ved Ram Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11021 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Ved Ram Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shrawan Kumar Pandey,Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5; and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi for the respondent no.6.

¶6

The prayer in this petition is for a direction upon the respondent authorities to comply with the stay order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No.128 of 2020.

¶7

From a perusal of the record it appears that the petitioner had instituted a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. The said suit was dismissed for non prosecution. An application for restoration of the suit was filed but the same came to be rejected against which the petitioner filed revision before the Board of Revenue. It appears that during pendency of the revision an application was moved for grant of interim relief. As the said application was not being considered, the petitioner filed Writ-B No.421 of 2020 which was disposed off by order dated 13.02.2020 requiring the Board of Revenue to pass appropriate order on the application. Copy of the order dated 13.02.2020 has been separately supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which shall be retained on record.

¶8

The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the direction dated 13.02.2020 the Board of Revenue passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo and not to sell the disputed land, which is being violated.

¶9

Ordinarily, if an order passed by a court is violated, the remedy for the aggrieved person is to initiate proceedings for contempt of court. In fact, it appears, the petitioner did file Contempt Application (Civil) No.1879 of 2020 for initiating contempt proceedings. However, the said contempt application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.06.2020, which is extracted below:-

¶10

"It is a frivolous contempt application filed by the applicant. The order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad only provides for maintaining status-quo on the spot by the parties and that the parties shall not sell the disputed land.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an order dated 07.03.2020 has been passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Amariya, District Pilibhit in Case No. 00179 of 2020( Smt. Kiranjeet Kaur Vs. Amit Singh Besan), under Sections 34/35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶12

From perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the Tehsildar, I do not find that there is any wilful disobedience of the interim order passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid, contempt application is dismissed."

¶14

In view of rejection of the contempt application filed by the petitioner, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the writ jurisdiction.

¶15

The petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file appropriate application before the Board of Revenue in the pending proceedings.

¶16

Order Date :- 8.7.2020 AKShukla/-

Ved Ram Sharma v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ved Ram Sharma v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Matsay Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shyam Prakash Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Harsh Enterprises Vs Director .Nrhm. Govt. and 6 Others

Vyas Singh Yadav @ Vyas Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Umesh Kumari Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Manju Devi Alias Pushpa Vs State of U.P. and 7 Ohters