Dismissed¶22

M/S Jai Bhawani Propmat Private Limited v. Shri Ravi Kumar Ng, Chief Executive Officer

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2025CAPL/5093/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt (civil) — alleged non-compliance with writ Court direction dated 29.5.2025 in Writ-C No. 17668 of 2025 to examine claim of physical possession of plot no. 30, allotment no. KYA01163, Village Kyampur, Gautam Budh Nagar, and decide representation within eight weeks — compliance affidavit showing representation decided on 24.10.2025 — writ order confined to examination of claim and decision on representation — no case for contempt — application infructuous — dismissed — liberty reserved to avail legal remedies — Allahabad High Court — Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as infructuous; however, liberty left open to the applicant/petitioner to avail the remedy available in law. ¶22

M/S Jai Bhawani Propmat Private Limited vs Shri Ravi Kumar Ng, Chief Executive Officer — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application dismissed as infructuous; however, liberty left open to the applicant/petitioner to avail the remedy available in law.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether any case for contempt was made out against the opposite party for alleged non-compliance with the writ Court's direction dated 29.5.2025 to examine the applicant's claim and decide its representation, given the compliance affidavit showing that the representation was decided on 24.10.2025.

¶19

Court's answer

On perusal of the writ Court's order, it is clear that the writ Court had required the opposite party only to examine the claim of the applicant/petitioner and take an appropriate decision in the matter.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Since the representation of the applicant/petitioner had been decided by the opposite party, and the writ Court's order dated 29.5.2025 was only to the extent of examining the claim and deciding the representation, which the authorities have done, no case for contempt is made out; the contempt application has become infructuous and stands dismissed.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.) dismissed Contempt Application (Civil) No. 5093 of 2025 filed by M/S Jai Bhawani Propmart Private Limited against Shri Ravi Kumar NG, Chief Executive Officer. The contempt allegation concerned non-compliance with the writ Court's order dated 29.5.2025 in Writ-C No. 17668 of 2025, whereby the respondent-Authority was directed to examine the petitioner's claim to physical possession of plot no. 30 (area 470 sq. mtrs., allotment no. KYA01163, Village Kyampur, Gautam Budh Nagar) and take an appropriate decision within eight weeks of communication of that order, along with a fresh representation. On a compliance affidavit showing that the representation had been decided on 24.10.2025 (annexure No. 1), the Court held that the writ order required only examination of the claim and decision on the representation, which the authorities had done; accordingly, no case for contempt was made out. The contempt application, having become infructuous, was dismissed, with liberty left open to the applicant/petitioner to avail the remedy available in law.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5093 of 2025

¶3

M/S Jai Bhawani Propmart Private Limited

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shri Ravi Kumar NG, Chief Executive Officer

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hemendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶8

Court No. - 36

¶9

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

¶10

The writ Court on 29.5.2025 while disposing of Writ-C No. 17668 of 2025 passed the following order;

¶11

"1. The following prayer has been made in the writ petition:-

¶12

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to grant physical possession of plot no. 30 (area 470 Sq. Mtrs.) allotment no. KYA01163 situated in Village Kyampur, Gautam Budh Nagar to the petitioner company forthwith or alternative plot of same valuation."

¶13

2. The case of the petitioner is that the plot in question was originally allotted by respondent-Development Authority to one Kartar Singh on 2.4.2003. Kartar Singh transferred his rights in favour of Vijay Kumar. Vijay Kumar thereafter transferred his rights in favour of Madhav Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner claims to have purchased rights of Madhav Buildcom Pvt. Ltd. by a transfer deed on 12.4.2024. The grievance is that the respondent-Authority has failed to provide physical possession of the plot.

¶14

3. Ms. Anjali Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent-Development Authority has placed on record the instructions from the Authority according to which hearing is in progress in respect of the entitlement under the original allotment order as the case of the Authority is that the original tenure holder is in possession of some excess area than what he

¶15

CAPL No. 5093 of 2025

¶16

¶17

is entitled to.

¶18

4. In view of the above stand, we dispose of the instant petition with direction to the respondent-Authority to examine the claim of the petitioner and take appropriate decision within eight weeks from the date of communication of the instant order along with a fresh representation."

¶19

From perusal of the order passed by the writ Court it is clear that the writ Court had required the opposite party to examine the claim of applicant/petitioner and take appropriate decision in the matter.

¶20

Today, when the case was taken up, a compliance affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party.

¶21

Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party, submits that the claim of the applicant/petitioner has been decided on 24.10.2025, copy of which has been brought on record as annexure No. 1 to the compliance affidavit.

¶22

As the representation of applicant/petitioner has been decided by the opposite party and the order of writ Court dated 29.5.2025 was only to the extent to examine the claim and decide the representation which the authorities have done and, as such, no case for contempt is made out. Contempt application has become infructuous and stands dismissed.

¶23

However, leaving it open to the applicant/petitioner to avail the remedy as is available in law.

¶24

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

¶25

October 27, 2025

¶26

Shekhar

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Jai Bhawani Propmat Private Limited v. Shri Ravi Kumar Ng, Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jai Bhawani Propmat Private Limited v. Shri Ravi Kumar Ng, Chief Executive Officer

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

Angrahit Pal vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Dinesh Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pancham Singh vs Shri Uma Shankar Tripathi Additional Commissioner, Administration

Smt Suman Devi vs Sanjeev Kumar and Another

Farendra Singh Tomar vs Sri Deepak Kumar, Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate and 2 Others

Kamal Ahuja and 6 Others vs Ravi Kumar N.G., Chief Executive Officer