Dismissed

Purshottam Singh and Another v. Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Sub Divisional Officer and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2024CAPL/4511/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt application filed for disobedience of a stay order regarding mutation proceedings. Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tehsildar's report was merely a recommendation and not an act liable for contempt, and the SDM's order maintaining status quo did not restart the stayed mutation proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Purshottam Singh and Another vs Shri Anil… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:126348

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4511 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Purshottam Singh And Another Opposite Party :- Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Sub Divisional Officer And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurang Kulshreshtha,Prem Sagar Verma

¶6

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶7

The present contempt application has been filed pleading disobedience of the order dated 28.2.2023 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 33579 of 2022.

¶8

It appears from a reading of the order dated 28.2.2023 that one Megh Singh was the recorded tenure holder of the disputed plot.

¶9

There was a contest regarding succession of the property of Megh Singh between the applicants and the daughter of Megh Singh who was arrayed as respondent No. 5 in Writ-C No. 33579 of 2022. It also appears from a reading of the order passed by the writ Court that the Tehsildar had initially allowed the application of the petitioner for mutation in revenue records. The order of the Tehsildar was challenged in appeal by the daughter of Megh Singh and the appeal court set aside the order of the Tehsildar vide its order dated 27.8.2015 and remanded back the matter to the Tehsildar for a fresh consideration.

¶10

The order of the appeal court was challenged in Writ-C No. 33579 of 2022.

¶11

This Court vide its order dated 28.2.2023 directed that further proceedings in mutation case before the Tehsildar in pursuance to the appeal order dated 27.8.2015 shall remain stayed.

¶12

It also appears from a reading of the different annexures filed with the affidavit that after the order passed by the writ Court a dispute again arose between the daughter of Megh Singh and the petitioners regarding cultivation of the plot of which Megh Singh was the tenure holder.

¶13

The Tehsildar in his report dated 4.5.2024 submitted before the Sub-Divisional Officer recommended that in light of the order dated 28.2.2023 no proceedings can be taken for mutation in the revenue records but due to the sensitivity of the matter it would be appropriate that the parties maintain

¶14

status quo on the plot and no one takes possession of the plot. Subsequently, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide his order dated 30.5.2024 directed that parties shall not take possession of the plot and shall maintain law and order and directed the Station House Officer, Police StationShamshabad, District-Agra to ensure that the previous position of the plot is restored.

¶15

The petitioner contends that the report dated 4.5.2024 passed by the Tehsildar and the order dated 30.5.2024 passed by the Deputy District Magistrate are in violation of the order passed by this Court and, therefore, the said officers are liable to be prosecuted and punished in contempt.

¶16

The Sub-Divisional Officer/Deputy District Magistrate has been impleaded as opposite party No. 1 and the Tehsildar has been impleaded as opposite party No. 2.

¶17

The report dated 4.5.2024 does not make the Tehsildar liable in contempt. The report is merely a report of the Tehsildar and is not an order or any positive act so as to make him liable for prosecution under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. So far as the order dated 30.5.2024 passed by the Deputy District Magistrate is concerned, the said order also does not violate the order dated 28.2.2023 passed by the writ Court inasmuch as by order dated 28.2.2023 the writ Court had only stayed the proceedings in the mutation case.

¶18

Any order regarding position on the spot can be challenged by the petitioner in appropriate proceedings for which the petitioner may exercise the legal remedies available to him.

¶19

The order dated 30.5.2024 does not restart the mutation proceedings pending before the Tehsildar in pursuance of the appeal order.

¶20

No case for instituting contempt proceedings is made out.

¶21

The contempt application is dismissed.

¶22

Order Date :- 6.8.2024 Anurag/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Purshottam Singh and Another v. Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Sub Divisional Officer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Purshottam Singh and Another v. Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Sub Divisional Officer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar vs Smt Neelam

Roju vs Smt. Suman Solanki, Civil Judge (Sr. Division)

Neeraj Yadav vs Ms Bhawana Vimal, Sub Divisional Magistrate

Krishna Kant vs Prem Narayan Prajapati, S.D.O. Handia

Satish Kumar Chaurasiya vs Tarun Gaba, Police Commissioner and Another

Rajpal and Another vs Sri Anurag Singh, Sdo and 3 Others