Dismissed

Raj Kumari and 2 Others v. Ashwani Kumar Pandey Sub Divisional Magistrate Bahraich and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2025/202/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt application, the applicant alleged violation of an interim order by the Sub Divisional Magistrate regarding land measurement. The court held that the order specifically restrained sale or purchase, prohibiting no contempt. The application was dismissed as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The contempt application was dismissed as it was found to be devoid of merits.

Raj Kumari and 2 Others Vs Ashwani Kumar Pandey Sub… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5049

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 202 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Raj Kumari And 2 Others Opposite Party :- Ashwani Kumar Pandey Sub Divisional Magistrate Bahraich And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pal Singh Yadav,Ashish Kumar Singh,Atul Kumar Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

The present contempt application has been preferred under Section 10 of Contempt of Court Act for alleged non compliance of the interim order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the Additional Collector, Administration-I, Devi Patan Division, Bahraich in case no. 1874 of 2024, Computerized case no. C202408000001874 filed under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The relevant extract of the order is being quoted hereinbelow:-

¶8

".......... पशनगतआददशसदसमबबधधतअवरनययययलयककपतयवललमबगयईजययदतथयअनयववपकलगणकक जररयदनकवटसतलबवकययजययद , ततपशचयतपतयवललससनवयईहदतसवदनयबक 20. 01. 2025 ककपदशहक। वववयवदतभभवमकदकय - ववकयसदउभयपककककअवगमआददशतकपवतबबधधतवकययजयतयहह। "

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that during the pendency of the revision, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed an order after taking forcible consent from the applicant for the measurement of the land which is subject matter of the pending revision, hence, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has violated the order of status quo passed by the revisional court.

¶10

After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and going through the order which reveals that by interim order dated 16.12.2024, the revisional court has directed the parties not to sell or purchase the disputed land. This is not a general order of status quo as the learned counsel for the applicant has aruged. The order is specific.

¶11

On being asked whether any of the parties before the revisional court has ever been sold the property in dispute, it has been very fairly replied by the learned counsel for the applicant that none of the parties have executed any sale deed of the disputed land.

¶12

In view of the facts and discussion made hereinabove, no contempt is made out.

¶13

The present contempt application is devoid of merits, hence, dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Nitesh

¶15

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

Raj Kumari and 2 Others v. Ashwani Kumar Pandey Sub Divisional Magistrate Bahraich and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumari and 2 Others v. Ashwani Kumar Pandey Sub Divisional Magistrate Bahraich and 3 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

Parashuram vs Smt. Renu Kushwaha Secy/ Mukhya Karya Palak Adhikari Distt. Cooperative Bank Ltd. Barabanki

Digamber Singh Bhandari vs Ravi Ranjan, Managing Director / Sec. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. Lucknow

Deena Nath vs Sri G.S. Priyadarshi, Commissioner, Rural Development U.P. Jawahar Bhawan, Lko. and Another

Chhathi Ram Verma Vs Mr. Avneesh Tripathi, Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Gonda District Gonda and Another

Anil Kumar Singh Vs Dr. Ram Chandra, Distt. Inspector of Schools, Gonda

Atul Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.