Rajaram Vs Dr. Sachin Kumar Verma, S.D.O. Sarojini Nagar Lucknow

Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in compliance of judgment and order passed in the writ petition, a decision has been taken by passing an order dated 25.10.2025 under Section 38(2) of the Revenue Code, 2006 after giving full opportunity of hearing to the applicant. Hence the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court has been complied with and the present contempt application has become infructuous.

¶12

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court has not been complied with and the respondent no.2 intentionally and willfully disobeyed the same.

¶13

It is further submitted that in the revision under Section 333 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the revision was decided in favour of the applicant wherein there is a categorical finding that there are reports which shows that the patta was allotted in favour of the applicant but his name was never ever entered into the revenue records.

¶14

It is further submitted that once the revisional court has decided the claim of the applicant then there is no occasion for the respondent no.2 to proceed under Section 38 (2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to redetermine the issue which has already attained finality by passing of the revisional order dated 16.03.2021.

¶15

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the Writ Court by its judgment and order dated 20.11.2024 has directed to Sub Divisional Magistrate i.e. respondent no.2 to take a decision positively within a period of two months for convenience the order dated 22.11.2024 is quoted hereinbelow:-

CAPL No. 761 of 2025

2

"Heard.

Let Sub.Divisional Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Tehsil-Sarojini Nagar, District-Lucknow verify contention of the petitioner herein that he had been granted a valid patta for agricultural purposes with the approval of the S.D.M. concerned on 29-06-1976 and on the order of the Additional Commissioner, an enquiry was got conducted, whereupon, it was found that the patta was infact granted and entries in this regard are available on Z.A. Form 57-B,but, inspite of it, name of the petitioner is not being recorded in the revenue records. It is also his contention that earlier in the revenue records, his name was recorded, but, Khataunies pertaining to the relevant years have gone missing,which led to filing of the aforesaid revision and resulted in the consequential order dated 16-03-2021.

¶20

Let such decision be taken by the Sub.Divisional Magistrate, Sarojini Nagar, TehsilSarojini Nagar, District-Lucknow, positively within two months and if he finds that the contention of the petitioner to be correct, then he shall ensure that the records are corrected and the name of the petitioner is entered therein with appropriate tenure unless there are good reasons in law for not doing so in which case these reasons shall be communicated to the petitioner."

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the revisional court during the course of argument. From the perusal of the same, it is found that in the first part of the revisional order, there are observations regarding the the reports submitted in favour of the applicant on the basis of the आकारपत्र 57-ख but the concluding part of the revisional order which the learned counsel for the applicant has failed to read before this Court wherein the direction was as follows:-

¶22

"प्रश्नगत प्रकरण मे सवर्प्र मे सवर्प्रथम इस िबन्दु का परीक्षण िकया जाना आवश्यक है िक िववािदत भूिम आवंटन हुआ था अथवा नहीं। यिद आवंटन हुआ था तो तत्समय आवंटन के पश्चात अग्रेतर कायर्वाही िकन कारणों से नहीं की गयी? उपरोक्त िबन्दुओं तथा तहसील आख्या िदनाँक 19.10.2020 का परीक्षणिकया जाना न्यायोिचत एवं िविधसंगत प्रतीत होता है।

¶23

उपरोक्त तथ्यों की िवचेना के आधार पर उपिजलािधकारी को िनदेर्िशत िकया जाता है िक िनणर्य में की गयी िववेचना के आलोक मे तहसील आख्या िदनाँक 19. 19.10.2020 का परीक्षण कर समुिचत कायर्वाही सुिनिश्चत करें। तद्नुसार िनगरानी िनस्तािरत की जाती है। आदेश की एक प्रित अवर न्यायालय को आवश्यक कायर्वाही हेतु प्रेिषत की जाये। बाद आवश्यक कायर्वाही इस न्यायालय की पत्रावली अिभलेखागार में संिचत की जाये। "

¶24

From the direction of the revisional court, it is very clear that the direction was issued to the respondent no.2/Sub Divisional Magistrate to first determine whether the land was ever allotted in favour of the applicant or not and if it is allotted in his favour why the entry was not made in the revenue records. So the direction was given by the revisonal court to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to adjudicate upon the matter and accordingly he decided the matter as per Section 38 (2) of the U.P. Revenue Code,

CAPL No. 761 of 2025

3