Dismissed¶21

Jagdish v. Ms. Aakriti Srivastava Tehsildar Sarojini Nagar Lucknow

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2025/2040/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2040 of 2024 (also cited as CAPL No. 2040 of 2024), Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Manish Kumar, J., decided October 14, 2025 — dismissed as infructuous. Keywords: contempt; non-compliance of writ court order; PIL No. 45 of 2024; Tehsildar Sarojini Nagar Lucknow; encroachment; Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; para 460 U.P. Revenue Court Manual; revenue records entries; compliance affidavit; objection; notice discharged.

What did the court decide?

None; notice issued, if any, stands discharged. ¶21

Jagdish Vs Ms. Aakriti Srivastava Tehsildar Sarojini Nagar Lucknow — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2040 of 2024

Jagdish

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Ms. Aakriti Srivastava Tehsildar Sarojini Nagar Lucknow

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rama Niwas Pathak, Raghaw Ram Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶8

Court No. - 8

¶9

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶10

Heard.

¶11

Present contempt application has been preferred for non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 19.01.2024 passed by Writ Court in Public Interest Litigation No. 45 of 2024. The relevant part of the said judgment and order dated 19.01.2024 is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶12

"7. Accordingly, without entering into merits of the case, the writ petition, is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move an application before the competent authority and in case such an application is made the said authority is directed to proceed to consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law."

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that a compliance affidavit has already been filed in the present case wherein it has been mentioned that the alleged encroachment was actually not a encroachment in all the plots mentioned in the order passed by the Writ Court as in most of the plots, the land was entered in the names of some persons. The details thereof have been given therein and where there was encroachment, the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated and decided.

¶14

It is further submitted that the applicant had not approached the Writ Court with clean hands as the applicant had suppressed material facts that the lands which were mentioned in the judgment and order of the Writ Court are entered in the names of tenure holders.

¶15

CAPL No. 2040 of 2024

¶16

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that against the compliance affidavit, objection has been filed mentioning therein that the name of the persons have wrongly been entered into the revenue records.

¶18

On being asked whether revenue entry made in the revenue record could be seen under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, he has very fairly submitted that it would not be seen under the aforesaid proceedings meaning thereby, learned counsel for the applicant is unable to dispute that those entries can not be looked into the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that after the passing of the order under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 till date no encroachment has been removed, for that, applicant has remedy under para 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual.

¶20

In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, the present contempt application has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.

¶21

Notice issued, if any, stands discharged.

¶22

October 14, 2025 Ashish

¶23

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jagdish v. Ms. Aakriti Srivastava Tehsildar Sarojini Nagar Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish v. Ms. Aakriti Srivastava Tehsildar Sarojini Nagar Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sandeep Vs Rajesh Kumar Maurya Chief Manager (Hr) State Bank of India Administrative Office, Lucknow

Aleem Ahmad and Another Vs Dimpal Verma Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. U.P. Govt. and Ors.

Avdhesh Kumar Singh Vs Mr. Hemant Rao, Prin. Secy. to Backward Classes Welfare Deptt., Lko. and Another

Kaushal Kumar vs Sri Radha S. Chauhan Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and Another

C/M Kranti Vidya Mandir Thru. Its Manager Shri Chandramauli Singh vs Shri Ram Pravesh Distt. Basic Education Officer, Shiksha Bhawan Lko.

Ajay Veer Singh and 2 Others vs Mr. Ravindra, Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Education and Research Lko. and 3 Others