Dismissed¶19

Brindresh Vishwakarmaa v. Mr. Pranav Agarwal, Distrcit Magistrate, Siddharthnagar and Others

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2025/1534/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1534 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 7, decided 6.8.2025 by Jaspreet Singh, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:45795. Keywords: wilful disobedience, contempt, compliance, U.P. Revenue Code 2006 Sections 24 and 30(2), demarcation, measurement, gata no. 833, Siddharthnagar/Sidharth Nagar, ADM Finance and Revenue, correction of map, committee, compensation, area, dismissal, notice discharged.

What did the court decide?

Since the petitioner, though informed, did not participate in the Section 24 demarcation proceeding, and the respondent's Section 30(2) proceedings were dropped for want of his appearance, it cannot be said that the authorities wilfully or deliberately violated the writ court's order. ¶14

Brindresh Vishwakarmaa Vs Mr. Pranav Agarwal, Distrcit Magistrate, Siddharthnagar and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether there was wilful or deliberate non-compliance/violation by the respondents of the writ court's order dated 23.11.2023 passed in Writ C No. 6973 of 2021 directing demarcation/measurement under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

¶14

Ratio / Principle

There is no wilful or deliberate disobedience of the writ court's order dated 23.11.2023 in Writ C No. 6973 of 2021; the writ court had required any demarcation to be conducted in terms of Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which was duly taken note of.

¶15

Key takeaways

The petitioner's contentions on the quantum of compensation and area pertain to the merits; the Court, exercising contempt jurisdiction, declined to entertain or delve into them.ratio¶16
Any observation made in these contempt proceedings is not an expression of opinion on the merits of the parties' contentions, and mere dismissal of the contempt petition does not bar the petitioner from availing remedies available under law in appropriate proceedings before the competent forum/court.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt – alleged wilful violation of writ court order dt. 23.11.2023 in Writ C No. 6973 of 2021 directing measurement of gata no. 833 under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 – petitioner was informed but did not participate in the Section 24 proceedings; proceedings under Section 30(2) of the Code, 2006 initiated by the ADM, Finance and Revenue, Sidharth Nagar for map correction were dropped owing to the petitioner's non-appearance – held, authorities guilty of no wilful or deliberate disobedience of the writ order – adequacy of compensation and area are matters of merit outside contempt jurisdiction – observations in contempt proceedings are not expressions on the merits and dismissal is no bar to remedies before the competent forum – contempt petition dismissed; notice to respondent discharged.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45795

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1534 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Brindresh Vishwakarmaa Opposite Party :- Mr. Pranav Agarwal, Distrcit Magistrate, Siddharthnagar And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Chandra Chaturvedi,Ved Prakash Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

¶8

The instant contempt petition was filed alleging violation of the order passed by the writ court on on 23.11.2023 in Writ C No. 6973 of 2021 whereby the respondent no. 4 was directed to measure the land in terms of Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 relating to gata no. 833 cha said to be that of the petitioner.

¶9

An affidavit of compliance has been filed by Sri Rajaganpathy R, District Magistrate, Sidharth Nagar who is respondent no. 4 wherein it is mentioned that the proceedings are pending before the competent court for correction of map under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It was also indicated that though the petitioner was put to a notice yet he failed to appear and in furtherance thereof the dispute has been determined by the committee constituted. The same was also in the knowledge of the petitioner, however he has not filed any objection.

¶10

In the rejoinder affidavit, petitioner has disputed the averments made in the affidavit of compliance, however the averments that the respondent in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit/affidavit of compliance has specifically stated that the proceedings were initiated under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by the ADM, Finance and Revenue, district Sidharth Nagar for correction in the map

¶11

was not disputed by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit.

¶12

It appears that there is a dispute regarding the land of the petitioner which has been utilized by the respondent authorities and apparently the compensation which has been offered to the petitioner is not acceptable to him.

¶13

Be that as it may, the issue before this Court is regarding the compliance or non-compliance of the order passed by the writ court dated 23.11.2023

¶14

The writ court in the order had clearly reflected that the dispute is factual in nature and can be adjudicated by demarcation in terms of Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue code, 2006. It also provided that the petitioner was at liberty of making an application before the SDM concerned and thereafter the proceedings were to be conducted in terms of Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. There is no dispute that the petitioner though had informed the respondent authorities but did not participate in the proceeding under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It is also not disputed that the respondent had initiated the proceedings under Section 30(2) of the Code, 2006 which were also dropped as the petitioner did not appear to contest. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the authorities have willfully or deliberately violated the order passed by the writ court.

¶15

As far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that the Court had directed the respondents to carry out the demarcation proceeding but they have erred and violated the spirit of the order. This Court is of the view that the writ court had stated that if any demarcation had to be done it had to be in terms of the law as contained in Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which has also be taken note of as directed by the writ court itself. Accordingly, this Court does not find that there is any wilful or deliberate disobedience of the order passed by the writ court on 23.11.2023 passed in Writ C No. 6973 of 2021.

¶16

It may also be observed that insofar as the contention of the petitioner regarding the amount of compensation and area is concerned, they are the subject matter of merits of the matter which this Court is not inclined to entertain or delve into as this Court is exercising jurisdiction as contempt court.

¶17

It is also clarified that any observation made by this Court in this contempt proceedings may not be taken as an expression of the opinion on the merits regarding the contention or objection of the respective parties which needless to say can always be decided in accordance with law.

¶18

Mere dismissal of this contempt petition will not be an embargo on the rights of the petitioner which may be available to him under law in appropriate proceedings before the competent forum/court.

¶19

The contempt petition is thus dismissed.

¶20

Notice to the respondent is discharged.

¶21

Order Date :- 6.8.2025 kanhaiya

¶22

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

Brindresh Vishwakarmaa v. Mr. Pranav Agarwal, Distrcit Magistrate, Siddharthnagar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brindresh Vishwakarmaa v. Mr. Pranav Agarwal, Distrcit Magistrate, Siddharthnagar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shiv Prasad Pandey Vs Sri Rajendra Prasad Pandey D.I.O.S. Faizabad

Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, through its Managing Director/ Chairman, Lucknow and Others

Govind Upadhyay and Anr. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru Regional Manager Lko and Ors.

Shailendra Kumar Shukla vs Shri M. Devraj, Prin. Secy. Technical Education, Technical Education Directorate, Kanpur

Brindresh Vishwakarmaa vs Mr. Pranav Agarwal, Distrcit Magistrate, Siddharthnagar and Others

Komal Shukla vs Shubham Bahadur Singh