Raj Kumari and 2 Others vs Ashwani Kumar Pandey Sub… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2025)

Raj Kumari and 2 Others vs Ashwani Kumar Pandey Sub… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the conduct of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (passing an order after taking forcible consent from the applicants for measurement of the disputed land during the pending revision) amounted to non-compliance of the interim order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the revisional court and constituted contempt under the Contempt of Court Act. +1 more

Court's answer

On enquiry by the Court, learned counsel for the applicants conceded that none of the parties had executed any sale deed of the disputed land; the Court proceeded on this footing.

Ratio / Principle

The interim order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the revisional court directed the parties not to sell or purchase the disputed land; it was a specific order, not a general order of status quo as argued by learned counsel for the applicants.

Key takeaways

In view of the facts and discussion, no contempt is made out; the contempt application is devoid of merits and is dismissed.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 202 of 2025 — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 17) — decided 27.1.2025 by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J. — DISMISSED. Applicants Raj Kumari and 2 others (counsel: Pal Singh Yadav, Ashish Kumar Singh, Atul Kumar Mishra) sought contempt proceedings under Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act against Ashwani Kumar Pandey, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bahraich and 3 others, alleging non-compliance of the interim order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the Additional Collector, Administration-I, Devi Patan Division, Bahraich in Revision case no. 1874 of 2024 (Computerized case no. C202408000001874) under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 — counsel submitting that the SDM had passed an order after taking forcible consent from the applicants for measurement of the disputed land, in violation of the revisional court's status-quo order. Held: the interim order of 16.12.2024 was not a general order of status quo but a specific direction that the parties neither sell nor purchase the disputed land; on enquiry, counsel conceded that no party had executed any sale deed of the disputed land; accordingly no contempt was made out and the application was dismissed as devoid of merits.

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

Court No. - 17

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

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

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

Heard.

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:-

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Nitesh

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