Dismissed

Ved Vyas Mishra v. Shri Dushyant Kumar Mourya, S.D.M. Bansdeeh and Another

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2021CAPL/409/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a contempt application challenging the non-compliance of a 2014 writ order directing revenue authorities to investigate agricultural land disputes. The applicant alleged wilful disobedience. The respondent filed a compliance affidavit stating a suit under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code was filed in March 2021. The court held no case for contempt was made out and dismiss

What did the court decide?

The contempt application was dismissed as infructuous; personal appearance of the officer was exempted.

Ved Vyas Mishra Vs Shri Dushyant Kumar Mourya, S.D.M… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 409 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ved Vyas Mishra Opposite Party :- Shri Dushyant Kumar Mourya, S.D.M. Bansdeeh And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite party for wilful disobedience of the order dated 15.05.2019 passed in Writ C No.5216 of 2014 (Jagar Nath Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Others). The order is reproduced hereinbelow :-

¶7

"Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶8

The grievance of the petitioner is that the area that was earmarked as chak road during the consolidation proceedings and delivery of possession after finalization of the consolidation proceedings under Section 28 took place, the 5th respondent on his own and against the records started for construction of a chak road on a different area which has virtually resulted in reducing the agricultural holding of the petitioner and other such villagers/ tenure holders. The petitioner has already raised his grievance vide application 12th June, 2013 before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bansdeeh, on which the Station House Officer, Bansdeeh was directed to provide police force on the spot to maintain peace.

¶9

From the perusal of the pleadings it transpires that though the chak finalization has resulted in settling the tenure holders over their chaks but because of some constructions of the chak road near or beside the area earmarked for such purpose, discontent has prevailed amongst other villagers.

¶10

In the considered opinion of the Court, if the parties aggrieved on account of agricultural holding being reduced because of either unauthorized encroachment by another tenure holder or even by an act of the Gaon Sabha or Gram Pradhan for that matter, the remedy lies for demarcation of the area of the land as per the area determined during the consolidation proceedings, before the competent revenue authorities under the relevant revenue laws.

¶11

Since the petitioner in the present case has already represented the matter before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bansdeeh, who happens to be one of the revenue authorities, competent enough to look into the matter, it is hereby directed that Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bansdeeh shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and such other villagers with reference to the area determined for chak road and the plot number during consolidation proceedings in the village and also with reference to the final chak map prepared during the consolidation proceedings.

¶12

Needless to add that before passing any order in the matter, SubDivisional Magistrate, Bansdeeh shall publish proper notice in the village concerned for tenure holders and after giving proper opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons.

¶13

The matter is of the year 2014, however, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents State authorities and, therefore, it is expected that entire exercise as directed hereinabove shall be carried out by the competent authority, namely, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bansdeeh, district- Ballia within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶14

With the above observations/ directions, the writ petition stands disposed of."

¶15

Pursuant to the order dated 06.07.2021 opposite party party no. 1, Shri Dushyant Kumar Maurya, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bansdeeh Tehsil Bansdeeh, District Ballia is present before this Court. An affidavit of compliance has been filed by Shri K. R. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, the same is taken on record. In paragraph-8 of the aforesaid affidavit it is stated that the applicant has already filed the case as provided Under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on 20.03.2021, copy of the aforesaid application is appended as Annexure-5 to the affidavit of compliance.

¶16

In view of the same, the Court is of the opinion that no case for contempt has been made out against the opposite party.

¶17

Accordingly, the present contempt application is dismissed as infructuous.

¶18

The personal appearance of the officer present in the Court is hereby exempted.

¶19

Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Swati

Ved Vyas Mishra v. Shri Dushyant Kumar Mourya, S.D.M. Bansdeeh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ved Vyas Mishra v. Shri Dushyant Kumar Mourya, S.D.M. Bansdeeh and Another

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

Sri Ram Swaroop Vs Rajesh Verma, Prabagiya Nideshak Samajik Vaniki Prabhag

Sri Ram Swaroop Vs Rajesh Verma, Prbhagiya Nideshak Samajik Vaniki Prabhag

Surendra Singh Vs Vijay Pratap Singh, District Basic Education Officer

Kiran Shankar Prasad Vs Mr Devesh Chaturvedi, Principal Secretary Housing and Urban Planning

Km. Rihana Khan and Another Vs Mr. Dheerendra Pratap, Deputy District Magistrate/ S.D.M. Jhansi

Prem Lata @ Ranjana Vs Satya Narain