Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2025CAPL/1534/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a writ court order directing land demarcation under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The court found proceedings under Sections 24 and 30(2) were initiated and the petitioner did not participate, so there was no wilful disobedience; compensation disputes were left to competent forums.

What the court decided

AI extract

Brindresh Vishwakarmaa vs Mr. Pranav Agarwal, Distrcit… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶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 the court decided

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

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

National Insurance Company Ltd. Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager Vs Jagannath and 7 Others

Uma Devi Vs Samudri Devi and 4 Others

Phool Chandra Tripathi vs Dr. Brijendra Singh v.C, Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agri. and Tech. Ayodhya and Another

Kalika Prasad Ojha Vs District Magistrate/Arbitrator, District Amethi and Ors.

Kalika Prasad Ojha Vs District Magistrate/ Arbitrator Amethi and Ors.

Neelam Singh Vs Chairman, National Highway Authority of India and 3 Others