Dismissed¶16

Shyam Jee Bharti v. Sri Devendra Yadav Tehsildar Sadar Dist. Gonda U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2025CAPL/4596/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt Application (Civil) 4596 of 2024; Shyam Jee Bharti v. Devendra Yadav, Tehsildar Sadar, Gonda; dismissed as infructuous; non-compliance of judgment dated 31.05.2024 in Article 227 No. 2858 of 2024; urgency application decided by order dated 27.01.2025; mutation case under Section 25 of the Code, 2006 pending since 27.07.2020; compliance affidavit; oral arguments beyond pleadings; notice discharged; Manish Kumar, J.; Lucknow Bench; 2025:AHC-LKO:6013.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed as infructuous; notice issued earlier, if any, stands discharged. ¶16

Shyam Jee Bharti Vs Sri Devendra Yadav Tehsildar Sadar Dist. Gonda U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition dismissed as infructuous; notice issued earlier, if any, stands discharged.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the opposite party complied with the judgement and order dated 31.05.2024 passed in the Article 227 petition No. 2858 of 2024, pursuant to which the applicant was to move an urgency application for early disposal of his mutation case pending under Section 25 of the Code, 2006 before respondent no. 3? +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

All arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant (that the order could not have been passed when the file was not available, and that officers started harassing villagers after issuance of notice) were beyond the pleadings, raised orally only on the day of hearing, with nothing available on record to support them.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Since the urgency application of the applicant had already been decided (by order dated 27.01.2025, as submitted by Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions dated 27.01.2025 received from the present Naib Tehsildar), the present contempt petition has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.

¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC-LKO:6013 | CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 4596 of 2024 | Shyam Jee Bharti v. Devendra Yadav, Tehsildar Sadar, Dist. Gonda U.P. | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Manish Kumar, J.), Order dated 29.1.2025 — Contempt petition alleging non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 31.05.2024 passed in Article 227 Petition No. 2858 of 2024, whereby the writ petition had been disposed of, without entering into merits, with liberty to move an urgency application for early disposal of a mutation case pending since 27.07.2020 under Section 25 of the Code, 2006 before respondent no. 3. Compliance affidavit of the respondent taken on record; Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions dated 27.01.2025 of the Naib Tehsildar, submitted that the urgency application stood decided by order dated 27.01.2025. Applicant's oral allegations (file unavailable; alleged harassment of villagers after issuance of notice) were held to be beyond the pleadings and unsupported on record. Petition dismissed as infructuous; earlier notices, if any, discharged.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6013

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4596 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shyam Jee Bharti Opposite Party :- Sri Devendra Yadav Tehsildar Sadar Dist. Gonda U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shrikant Mishra,Avadhesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Om Prakash Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Compliance affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent, which is taken on record.

¶8

The present contempt petition has been preferred for non-compliance of the judgement and order dated 31.05.2024 passed in the petition under Article 227 No.2858 of 2024, the relevant extract is quoted hereinbelow:

¶9

"At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that present petition may be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application for early disposal of the mutation case pending under Section 25 of the Code, 2006 before the respondent no. 3 and if any such application is preferred by the petitioner the same may be decided within the stipulated time by this Court may fix.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merit of the case, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an urgency application in aforesaid case, which is pending since 27.07.2020 before respondent no. 3. If any such urgency application is preferred, it is expected that respondent no. 3 shall decide the urgency application expeditiously in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without providing any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties."

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the instructions dated 27.01.2025 received from the present Naib Tehsildar has submitted that the urgency application of the applicant has been decided by order dated 27.01.2025, the copy of which has been provided to the learned counsel for the applicant today also.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that when the file is not available, how the order could be passed, but nothing is available on record whatever the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

He has further submitted that after the issuance of the notice, there is a general practice that the officers started harassing the villagers. All the arguments made by the learned counsel for the applicant is beyond the pleadings and orally made only today.

¶15

The urgency application of the applicant has already been decided and the present contempt petition has become infructuous, as such, the same is

¶16

dismissed as infructuous.

¶17

Notice issued earlier, if any, stand discharged. Order Date :- 29.1.2025 S. Kumar

¶18

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

Shyam Jee Bharti v. Sri Devendra Yadav Tehsildar Sadar Dist. Gonda U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Jee Bharti v. Sri Devendra Yadav Tehsildar Sadar Dist. Gonda U.P.

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

Prem Nath Vs Shri Raj Karan Nayyar Senior Superintendent of Police Dist. Ayodhya

Smt. Prabhawati Vs Sri Santosh Kumar Ojha, Up Ziladhikari, Utraula, Balrampur

Smt. Rani Balmiki Vs Indrajeet Singh, Nagar Ayukt Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Lko.

Ajeet Pratap Singh Vs Sri Rakesh Kumar, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Belha, Pratapgarh

Kumari Pushpa Vs Raj Kapur Naib Tehsildar Tehsil Alapur Distt.Ambedkar Nagar

Girish Kumar Agarwal Vs Sri Anand Kumar Singh Managing Director Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Lko.