Pawan Kumar Vs Parmanand and Others

Court No. - 17

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1956 of 2024

Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Opposite Party :- Parmanand And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Indrajeet,Amit Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

Relevant record placed by Sri Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel before this Court are taken on record.

¶7

On 2.8.2024, following order was passed:-

¶8

1. Heard.

¶9

2. The instant contempt application has been filed for punishing the respondents for willful disobedience of order dated 03.11.2023 passed in Writ-C No. 9630 of 2023.

¶10

3. On 13.05.2024 and 01.08.2024 following orders were passed:Order dated 13.05.2024:

¶11

"1. Heard.

¶12

2. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is permitted to implead Shri Ashok Kumar Verma, Station House OfÏcer, Police StationAsandra, District- Barabanki as respondent no. 04, forthwith.

¶13

3. List this case on 29.05.2024 as fresh.

¶14

4. In the meantime, Shri Sunil Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall seek written instructions from respondent no. 04 about the fact that under what circumstances, he exchange the possession from the applicant to respondent nos. 01, 02 & 03 despite interim order of this Court as his presence is shown on the alleged site in a photograph which is annexed at page no. 91 of the contempt application.

¶15

5. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to provide a copy of the contempt application to Shri Bajpai, forthwith." Order dated 01.08.2024:

¶16

"1. Put up tomorrow, i.e., on 02.08.2024 at 11.30 a.m.

¶17

2. In the meantime, Shri Sunil Bajpayee, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall seek written instructions from the concerned authority that how the possession of the property has been handed over to respondent nos. 1 to 3."

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Kushambhar was the original recorded tenure holder, who was having five children (three sons and two daughters), namely, Chandrika, Ram Sagar, Satyanaam, Ram Lali and Chandra Kala. He further submits that marriage of Ram Lali and Chandra Kala was solemnised and both were residing in their respective in-laws house, then after death of Kushambhar, the holding was recorded in the name of Chandrika, Ram Sagar and Satyanaam. As Chandrika died issueless, the property of whom was mutated in the name of Ram Sagar and Satyanaam. He next submits that the applicant is son of Satyanaam and all the holdings were being cultivated by him. After death of Ram Sagar on 18.05.2018, his property was mutated in the name of the applicant, but children of Chandra Kala tried to encroach that property with the association of revenue authority and they filed a revision against the mutation order without disclosing date of death of Ram Sagar. It is next submitted that this fact is also not disputed that in the property of Kushambhar, the names of Ram Lali and Chandra Kala were not included, thereafter, the revision mutation order was stayed by Additional Commissioner. It is

¶19

vehemently submitted that the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya in Revision No. 1005 of 2023 was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 9630 of 2023, in which, operation of revision order dated 19.07.2023 was stayed on 03.12.2023 and notice was issued to the aggrieved parties, in the meantime, with the association of revenue authorities, property was handed over to private respondent nos.2, 3 & 4.

¶20

5. List this case on 13.08.2023 at 11:30 A.M.

¶21

6. On the next date, respondent no.4 shall appear in person before this Court.

¶22

7. Tehsildar, Haidergarh, Barabanki is directed to ensure that khasra of the disputed gata from 18.05.2018 till now be placed before this Court on the next date of listing.

¶23

In pursuance of earlier order, Ms. Mahima Mishra, Tehsildar, Ramsanehighat, Barabanki and Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Sub Inspector, Police Station Asandra, District Barabanki are present before this Court.

¶24

Ms. Mahima Mishra, Tehsildar, Ramsanehighat, Barabanki placed Khasra of disputed Gata, i.e., 1430 & 1431 from which it reveals that applicant is in possession over the property in question.

¶25

OfÏcers present before this Court categorically stated that possession is not being disturbed but on the complaint made by the parties on I.G.R.S. Portal, police visited the house of the applicant as well as respondent.

¶26

Considering the statements of aforesaid ofÏcers and going through the contents of Khasra placed before this Court, i.e., 1430 & 1431, it is evident that applicant is in possession over the property in question, therefore, no case of contempt is made out, accordingly, the contempt application is dismissed .

¶27

Presence of the ofÏcers present today is hereby discharged.

¶28

Order Date :- 13.8.2024 Gaurav/-

¶29

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

Pawan Kumar v. Parmanand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar v. Parmanand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gopal Ji Vs Dr. Rajnish Dube, Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lko.

Ram Saran Vs Mr. Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma Sub Divisional Magistrate, Distt. Barabanki and Another

Prem Chandra Soni Vs Shri M.Dev Raj, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education, Govt. Lko and Others

Durgesh Chandra Srivastav vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Min. of Energy, Lucknow and 6 Others

Rajesh Kumar Dubey and Others vs Sri Sardar Singh, District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh

Pawan Kumar vs Parmanand and Others