Disposed¶10

Mohd. Mukhtar v. Sri Medi Lal Consolidation Officer Milkipur Distt. Ayodhya

Allahabad HC10 Mar 2025CAPL/34/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt of court; non-compliance of writ Court order; Matters Under Article 227 No. 5657 of 2023; Consolidation Officer Milkipur District Ayodhya; Section 9A(2) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953; six-month compliance period expired 30.05.2024; extension of time rejected; framing of charges; Manish Kumar J.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; order dated 18.2.2025; listing week commencing 10.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Interim directions: request for further three months' time rejected; case listed in the week commencing 10.03.2025; respondent warned that failure to file the compliance affidavit by the next date of listing will require him to appear for framing of charges. ¶10

Mohd. Mukhtar Vs Sri Medi Lal Consolidation Officer Milkipur Distt. Ayodhya — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the opposite party has failed to comply with the writ Court's judgment and order dated 06.11.2023 in Matters Under Article 227 No. 5657 of 2023, which directed the Consolidation Officer to decide the pending proceedings within six months. +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

The Court listed the case in the week commencing 10.03.2025 and directed that if the compliance affidavit is not filed by the respondent by the next date of listing, he shall appear for the purposes of framing of charges.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The Court rejected the respondent's request for a further three months' time, observing that from May 2024 until February 2025 there was ample time with the Officer concerned to comply with the judgment and order passed by the writ Court, and that no extension application with affidavit had been filed.

¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 34 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Manish Kumar, J.), order dated 18.2.2025. The applicant sought action for alleged non-compliance of the writ Court's judgment and order dated 06.11.2023 in Matters Under Article 227 No. 5657 of 2023, whereby the opposite party no.1/Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, District Ayodhya was directed to decide the pending case(s), stated to be under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, most expeditiously, preferably within six months. Per the applicant's counsel, the six-month period expired on 30.05.2024 with the proceedings undecided. The respondent, via learned Standing Counsel, sought a further three months citing the May 2024 Parliamentary elections and the February 2025 by-polls, but filed no extension application with affidavit. The Court held that ample time existed between May 2024 and February 2025 to comply and rejected the request. The case was listed in the week commencing 10.03.2025, with a direction that if the compliance affidavit is not filed by the next date of listing, the respondent shall appear for the purposes of framing of charges.

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 34 of 2025

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Mukhtar Opposite Party :- Sri Medi Lal Consolidation Officer Milkipur Distt. Ayodhya Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non compliance of the judgment and order dated 06.11.2023 passed in Matters Under Article 227 No. 5657 of 2023. The relevant extract of the same is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶6

"Considering the facts as stated, particularly the period of pendency of the case, which appears to be pending since 2012, this petition is disposed of with direction to opposite party no.1/Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, District- Ayodhya to consider and decide the pending Case(s) in issue, quoted in the prayer clause, most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment, preferably within a period of six months from the next date fixed before it, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

¶7

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law."

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the six months' period has already expired on 30.05.2024 but till date, the proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 has not been decided.

¶9

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received from the respondent has submitted that further three months' time may be granted for compliance of the judgment and order passed by the writ Court but no application for extension of time along with an affidavit has been filed by the respondent.

¶10

The reasons indicated in the instructions are firstly, that there was Parliamentary elections in the month of May, 2024 and secondly, the by-polls was held in the month of February, 2025 but since May, 2024 till February, 2025, there was ample time with the Officer concerned to comply with the judgment and order passed by the writ Court, as such, the request for granting further three months' time by the respondent is hereby rejected.

¶11

List this case in the week commencing 10.03.2025.

¶12

In case by the next date of listing, the compliance affidavit is not filed by the respondent, he shall appear for the purposes of framing of charges.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Nitesh

¶14

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

Mohd. Mukhtar v. Sri Medi Lal Consolidation Officer Milkipur Distt. Ayodhya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Mukhtar v. Sri Medi Lal Consolidation Officer Milkipur Distt. Ayodhya

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

Jag Narayan Vs Gaya Prasad

Akhilanand Shahi Vs Professor P. K. Singh, Registrar, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University Agra

Smt. Savitri Devi and Another Vs Sri Avinash Singh, Distt. Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar

Smt. Ranjana Srivastava vs Sri Masoom Ali Sarvar, Managing Director of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Lko. and Another

Durgesh Nandani vs Sri Uttam Kumar Saxena, Chief Engineer Hydyl Uppcl, Lko.

Deepu Yadav and 3 Others Vs Dr. Vijay Bahadur Dwivedi, Director Horticulture and Food Processing Lko.