Disposed

Prem Chandra Verma and Another v. Brigadier Akhil Dixit and Others

Allahabad HC16 May 2024/1390/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt application alleging willful disobedience of an interim writ order protecting possession of a plot in Barabanki. The court held disputed questions of title and demarcation cannot be examined in contempt jurisdiction and disposed of the application with liberty to seek remedy under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed with liberty to applicants to take appropriate remedy under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Prem Chandra Verma and Another Vs Brigadier Akhil Dixit… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37711

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1390 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Prem Chandra Verma And Another Opposite Party :- Brigadier Akhil Dixit And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar,Aditya Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ripu Daman Shahi,Ashutosh Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

1. Heard.

¶7

The instant contempt application has been filed for initiating contempt proceeding against respondent no. 04/contemnor and for punishing her due to willful disobedience of order dated 24.10.2013 passed in Writ-C No. 9855 of 2013.

¶8

On 16.04.2024 following order was passed:

¶9

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Haseena Bano was the recorded tenure holder of plot no.10 of Khasra No.698 situated in village Pargana, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki, as the plotting was done over the aforesaid land of Haseena Bano and plot no.10 was purchased by one Jeevan Das, which was transferred in favour of Sri Amrit Singh Marwah through registered sale deed on 22.1.1969 and thereafter, on 9.8.1971, plot no.10 area measuring 3000 sq. ft. was purchased by the applicant no.1 from Amrit Singh Marwah. He further submits that plot nos.12 & 13 were purchased by Brigadier Brij Mohan Dixit, R/o Village and Post Aurangabad, Tehsil Mishrikh, Sitapur. He also submits that one Shiv Prasad Jaiswal, S/o Shri Babu Ram purchased 1000 Sq. ft. land of aforesaid Gata and encroached major part of the land including land of Gao Sabha and constructed Bharat Cold Storage, thereafter Brigadier Akhil Dixit tried to encroached the plot of the applicant then writ petition was filed before this Court, in which, interim protection was granted on 24.10.2013.

¶11

The order dated 24.10.2013 reads as under:-

¶12

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned C.S.C. Petitioner has purchased plot no. 10 in Ayub Nagar Colony on resale basis. It is pleaded that the father-in-law of the opposite party No.2, Shri Sanjay Prasad, IAS, Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad has encroached over the plot of respondent no. 6, 7, and 8 and in consequence thereof, in connivance of the respondents no. 2, 3 and 4, respondents no. 6, 7 and 8 are trying to encroach over the petitioners' plot.

¶13

According to the petitioners' counsel the district authorities are restraining the petitioner from raising construction over his own plot. Further submission of the petitioners' counsel is that an F.I.R. has also been lodged against him in connivance with the police. Respondents may not be permitted to interfere with regard to peaceful possession of his property in question.

¶14

Though, ordinarily such matter should be relegated to the civil court where dispute may be settled but keeping in view the pleadings on record and on account of allegations that the persons holding high office such as Commissioner, District Magistrate or Senior Superintendent of Police are trying to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession of his property, it is a fit case to interfere under powers conferred by Article 226 of Constitution of India.

¶15

Accordingly, we issue notice to respondent no. 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 returnable at an early date. Notice has been accepted by learned Chief Standing counsel for opposite parties no.1, 4 and 5.

¶16

Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks containing parawise reply to the writ petition. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶17

Since, it is stated that petitioner is purchaser of plot no. 10 on resale basis in Ayub Nagar Colony, District Barabanki, and copy of the sale deed has been annexed with the writ petition, respondents are restrained from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession of plot in question, which shall be subject to further orders passed by this Court.

¶18

List after six weeks."

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that part of the said plot was sold out by respondent nos.1 to 3 to respondent no.4- Smt. Kanta Dogra W/o Late P.R. Dogra, R/o 3/96, Vikas Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow on 16.5.2016, thereafter, respondent no.4 alongwith other associates demolishes the boundary wall and started digging foundation for construction. He further submits that the order of the writ court was provided to the authorities as well as respondents but even then they are flouting the order of the writ court, therefore, they may be punished.

¶20

List this case on 8.5.2024.

¶21

Issue notice to the respondents.

¶22

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur as well as Lucknow are directed to ensure the service of notice on the respondents and place a written report before this Court.

¶23

In the meantime, Mr. Sunil Bajpayee, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall seek instructions from the authority concerned and Superintendent of Police, Barabanki is directed to ensure the compliance of the order of the writ court dated 24.10.2013."

¶24

Shri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel for respondent no. 04 submits that map of respondent no. 04 was sanctioned by the competent authority as her name is also mutated in the revenue

¶25

record.

¶26

Considering the aforesaid submissions and contents of contempt application, order passed by the Writ Court, counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 04 as well as other relevant documents; it is undisputed fact that the applicants and respondent no. 04 are the recorded tenure holder of Gata No. 698 of Village- Obri, Pargana & Tehsil- Nawabganj, Barabanki. Disputed question of facts cannot be examined in the contempt jurisdiction as there is appropriate remedy for demarcation of the property of the recorded tenure holder under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶27

Subject to above, the instant contempt application is disposed of with liberty to the applicants to take appropriate remedy under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶28

Order Date :- 16.5.2024 Arpan

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prem Chandra Verma and Another v. Brigadier Akhil Dixit and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Chandra Verma and Another v. Brigadier Akhil Dixit and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra Vs Mrs. Aradhna Shukla, Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush ANUBHAG-1, Civil Secrtt., Lko.

Mohd. Shahid Vs Sri Rajesh Gautam, Incharge Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich

Shyam Lal and Another Vs Sri Brajesh Chandra Tiwari Inspector SHO P.S-Pgi Lko and Another

Mithlesh Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Ram Kripal Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Masihul Haq Vs Smt. Neha Sharma District Magistrate Gonda and Another