Ram Rup Manjhi and 5 Others vs Sri Raj Karan Naiyyar, Senior Superintendent of Police Ayodhya and 2 Others

Court No. - 17

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1096 of 2025

Applicant :- Ram Rup Manjhi And 5 Others Opposite Party :- Sri Raj Karan Naiyyar, Senior Superintendent Of Police Ayodhya And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sayyed Farooq Ahmad,Vinod Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

On 16.04.2025, following order was passed:-

¶6

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶7

2. The instant contempt application has been filed by the applicants alleging disobedience of the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 2954 of 2025.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are recorded tenure holder of Gata Nos. 3/2aa, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91/1v, 92/1va, 93/1va, 94/1va, 96/1, 1437/2va Situated at Village- Tihura Manjha, Pargana- Haveli Awadh, Tehsil- Sadar, District- Ayodhya. He further submits that M/s HOABL Realtech Private Limited was trying to grab the property of the applicants with the assistance of local administrative officials as well as police personnel. Feeling aggrieved with the action of the aforesaid company, a regular suit no. 565 of 2024 (Ram Rup and Ors. Vs. HOABAL) was filed in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), in which, stay order was passed on 18.05.2024. As administrative officials were interfering in the peaceful possession of the applicants, they preferred Writ-C No. 2954 of 2025, which was disposed of on 01.04.2025, after hearing the learned counsel for the State as well as aforesaid company, with the direction that the officials shall not interfere with the possession if any of the petitioners or their rights in respect of land of aforesaid gatas.

¶9

4. The aforesaid order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the writ Court in WritC No. 2954 of 2025 is as under:-

¶10

"1. Vakalatnama filed today on behalf of opposite party No.6 by Shri Altaf Mansoor, Advocate, is taken on record.

¶11

2. Heard.

¶12

3. Shri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has written instructions to the effect that the State authorities i.e. opposite parties No. 1 to 5 are not interfering in the dispute, if any, between the petitioners and opposite party No.6 except to the extent of maintaining law and order. The instructions also says that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question to the extent of their respective shares.

¶13

4. Shri Altaf Mansoor, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.6 says that a portion of the land in question has been sold by the petitioners to the opposite party no.6. Demarcation has taken place and the petitioners are in possession of their share of the land and the opposite party no.6 is in possession of the land purchase by him.

¶14

5. We do not wish to enter into this controversy between the petitioner and opposite party no.6, which is a private party. Private parties are at liberty to get their dispute resolved before the appropriate forum specially as it is said that some civil suit has already been filed.

¶15

6. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of this writ petition with the observations/ directions that the official opposite parties shall not interfere with the possession if any of the petitioners or their rights in respect of the land bearing Gata Nos. 3/2aa, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91/1v, 92/1va, 93/1va, 94/1va, 96/1, 1437/2va situated at Tihura Manjha, Pargana Haveli Awadh, Tehsil Sadar, District Ayodhya in the event of there being any dispute with the opposite party no.6 or any other private party and that they shall come into the picture only if there is any law and order situation, apprehension of breach of peace, apprehension of commission of crime or the crime has been actually committed or there is any order of the Court to be complied with or if there is any other ground in law for valid interference."

¶16

5. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the aforesaid order of the writ Court was communicated to the respondent-officials on 05.04.2025 through registered post as well as a copy of the order was also provided personally. Thereafter, in place of making compliance of directions of this Court, on 08.04.2025 at about 1:00 pm, respondent no.3 as well as area lekhpal and other police personnel came on the spot and forced the applicants to vacate the possession over the aforesaid property. He next submits that one of the applicants immediately made a call to respondent no.1 and also sent an email, but no action was taken and the mobile phone of daughter of applicant no.1, bearing Mob. No. 8881296503, was also snatched by lady Sub Inspector- Ms. Manju Devi. Drawing attention of the Court on the photographs annexed with the petition as Annexure No.6, learned counsel for the applicants vehemently submits that the respondent-officials deliberately violated directions of the writ Court, therefore, they may be summoned and punished accordingly.

¶17

6. List this case on 22.04.2025 at 11:30 A.M.

¶18

7. In the meantime, Sri Sunil Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall seek written instructions from the respondent-officials about the fact that under what circumstances, police personnel visited the property, as discussed hereinabove, despite a clear restrain order was passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Regular Suit No. 565 of 2024 as well as by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition.

¶19

8. Let a copy of this contempt application be provided to Sri Sunil Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel by learned counsel for the applicants, forthwith."

¶20

Short counter affidavit filed by Sri Sunil Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel duly sworn by Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Station House Officer, Kotwali Ayodhya, is

¶21

taken on record.

¶22

Sri Bajpai submits that in compliance of directions of senior officers, Sub Inspector- Jagannath Mani Tripathi, Lady Sub Inspector- Maju Jaiswal, Constable- Rahul Singh, ConstableHimanshu Kumar, Constable- Suresh Kumar, Lady ConstableNitu Yadav were present at the place of incident along with revenue officers for maintaining law and order for the purpose of demarcation of the land in question, which was purchased by M/s House of Abhinandan Lodha. He also submits that the demarcation order has been passed in accordance with law and the said order was being complied with by the officers by visiting the place of incident.

¶23

3. List this case on 15.05.2025 at 11:30 A.M.

¶24

By the next date, respondent no.2 shall appear in person along with the demarcation order, in compliance of which, the aforesaid officers visited the place of incident for demarcation.

¶25

Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Arpan

¶26

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

Ram Rup Manjhi and 5 Others v. Sri Raj Karan Naiyyar, Senior Superintendent of Police Ayodhya and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Rup Manjhi and 5 Others v. Sri Raj Karan Naiyyar, Senior Superintendent of Police Ayodhya and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arun Kumar @ Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Saddam @ Mohd. Shah Faisal @ Shah Faisal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Satya Prakash @ Pappu and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Safar Ali vs Surabhi Gautam, Tehsildar / Assistant Collector Tarabganj Distt. Gonda

Rajkumar Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Mohd. Sabir Alias Siboo and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another