Dismissed

M/S Vineeta Chemicals and Another v. Smt. Sudha Khatik and 13 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024CAPL/4256/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt application, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the applicant's claim that the Nagar Panchayat's cancellation of land allotment violated a 2023 writ order and a 1990 civil decree. The court held the application lacks merit.

What did the court decide?

Contempt application is dismissed finding the order not to be contumacious and granting remedy to challenge order on merits.

M/S Vineeta Chemicals and Another vs Smt. Sudha Khatik… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:108205

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4256 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- M/S Vineeta Chemicals And Another Opposite Party :- Smt. Sudha Khatik And 13 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sr. Advocate,Vivek Saran

¶5

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

The contempt application has been filed under Sections 10/12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

¶7

The application has been filed stating that the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Hastinapur, Meerut through his order dated 14.6.2024 has violated the order dated 25.7.2023 passed by this Court in Writ C No.47796 of 2012 and also the decree dated 26.11.1990 passed by the IVth Additional Civil Judge, Meerut in Civil Appeal Nos.134 of 1987 and 135 of 1987.

¶8

Through order dated 14.6.2024, the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Hastinapur, Meerut has canceled the allotment made in favour of the applicants and has restored the disputed plot in the Nagar Panchayat, Hastinapur.

¶9

The facts of the case as apparent from the averments made in the affidavit and the documents annexed with the same are that the applicants claim that the plot initially vested in the notified Area Committee, Hastinapur and was allotted to the applicants by the notified Area Committee and appropriate orders to that effect were passed by the District Magistrate as Chairman of the notified Area Committee. Subsequently, an order dated 8.2.1983 was passed by the District Magistrate cancelling the allotment made in favour of the applicants. The said order was challenged by the applicants before the Civil Cout and in Civil Appeal Nos. 134 of 1987 and 135 of 1987, the Civil Appellate Court vide its decree dated 26.11.1990 declared the order dated 8.2.1983 as null and inoperative and further restrained the notified Area Committee from interfering in the possession of the applicant over the suit property which is also the subject matter of the present contempt application.

¶10

Subsequently, an order dated 4.9.2012 was passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut again cancelling the allotments

¶11

made in favour of the applicants. The order dated 4.9.2012 was challenged by the applicants through Writ C No.47796 of 2012 mainly on the ground that the allotment was made in favour of the applicants by the notified Area Committee and order was passed by the District Magistrate as Chairman of the notified Area Committee. It was pleaded that the notified Area Committee has been succeeded by the Nagar Panchayat, Hastinapur and the order dated 4.9.2012 passed by the District Magistrate is without jurisdiction.

¶12

The Writ Petition No.47796 of 2012 was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 25.7.2023 whereby the Court setaside the order dated 4.9.2012 passed by the District Magistrate and permitted the Nagar Panchayat, Hastinapur, Meerut to proceed in accordance with law regarding the cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the applicants. The writ Court in its order dated 25.7.2023 did not record any opinion regarding the binding nature of the decree of the Civil Court. Subsequently by order dated 14.6.2024, the Nagar Panchayat has cancelled the allotment made in favour of the applicants.

¶13

In view of the order dated 25.7.2023 passed by the writ Court permitting the Nagar Panchayat, Hastinapur to proceed regarding the cancellation of allotment, the order dated 14.6.2024 cannot be considered to be in violation of the order dated 25.7.2023 passed by this Court. Similarly, no violation of the decree dated 26.11.1990 through order dated 14.6.2024 can be inferred. The applicants have the remedy to challenge the order dated 14.6.2024 on merits or for any procedural violation, in appropriate proceedings wherein the effect and nature of the decree dated 26.11.1990 passed by the Civil Court may be considered and examined.

¶14

The order dated 14.6.2024 is not contumacious.

¶15

For the aforesaid reasons, the application is dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 4.7.2024 IB

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ITU BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Vineeta Chemicals and Another v. Smt. Sudha Khatik and 13 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vineeta Chemicals and Another v. Smt. Sudha Khatik and 13 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

Smt. Prabha vs Sri Surendra Tiwari, Secretary U.P. Basic Education Board

Sudhir Kumar Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Subhash Chandra Batra vs Garima Singh

C/M Rastriya Shiksha Sansathan Purv Madhyamik Vidyalaya vs Dr Mahendra Dev Director Basic Education Up Government

Smt Amarjeet Kaur and 18 Others vs Dr Umesh Pratap Singh, I.A.S and Another

Smt. Pushpa vs Sri Ravendra Singh, Sub Divisional Magistrate and 3 Others