Dismissed¶15

Lali v. Sri Padmesh Srivastava Tehsildar Tehsil Alapur Ambedkar Nagar

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2026CAPL/1192/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Contempt Application (C) No. 1192 of 2026; applicant Lali against Tehsildar Padmesh Srivastava (Tehsil Alapur, Ambedkar Nagar); contempt application dismissed as nothing survived — underlying proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in Case No. T20240404042746 (Lali Devi v. Dhanai) decided vide order dated 22.04.2026; merits held not decidable in contempt jurisdiction per J.S. Parihar (AIR 1997 SC 113), Lalit Mathur ((2000) 10 SCC 285) and other cited rulings; liberty reserved to challenge the order dated 22.04.2026; decided 24.04.2026 by Saurabh Lavania, J.

What did the court decide?

Contempt application dismissed, with liberty to the applicant to approach the appropriate Forum/Court against the order dated 22.04.2026 if aggrieved. ¶15

Lali vs Sri Padmesh Srivastava Tehsildar Tehsil Alapur Ambedkar Nagar — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt application dismissed, with liberty to the applicant to approach the appropriate Forum/Court against the order dated 22.04.2026 if aggrieved.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the contempt application survives for decision, the proceedings directed by the Writ Court in Case No. T20240404042746 under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 having been decided vide order dated 22.04.2026. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The case in issue having been decided vide order dated 22.04.2026, nothing survives in the instant contempt petition; the Court held it liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed it.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Merit of the case cannot be decided in the contempt jurisdiction — principle noted from the cited pronouncements and acted upon by the Court.

¶14

Key takeaways

Liberty reserved to the applicant/petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum/Court against the order dated 22.04.2026, if aggrieved by it.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1192 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 7 (Saurabh Lavania, J.), decided 24.04.2026 — Lali v. Sri Padmesh Srivastava, Tehsildar, Tehsil Alapur, Ambedkar Nagar. The matter arose from the Writ Court direction that proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in Case No. T20240404042746 (Lali Devi v. Dhanai) be decided. Instructions of the Officer concerned, taken on record, stated that the case in issue stood decided vide order dated 22.04.2026. Taking note of pronouncements including J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar (AIR 1997 SC 113), Lalit Mathur v. L. Maheswara Rao ((2000) 10 SCC 285), Ashok Kumar Pandey, Brahma Deo Tiwari, Shail Raj Kishore, Anil Kumar Shahi (2) and Hari Raj Kishore, the Court held that the merit of the case cannot be decided in the contempt jurisdiction; finding that nothing survived, it dismissed the contempt application and granted liberty to the applicant to approach the appropriate Forum/Court against the order dated 22.04.2026, if aggrieved.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1192 of 2026

Lali

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Sri Padmesh Srivastava Tehsildar Tehsil Alapur Ambedkar Nagar

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Tulsi Ram Yadav, Priyank Yadav	Ankur Gupta, Parul Gupta,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Prabhakar Tiwari

¶9

Court No. - 7

¶10

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶11

Instructions received from the Officer concerned placed before this Court are taken on record.

¶12

2. Heard.

¶13

It is stated that according to the order of the Writ Court proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, in case registered as Case No. T20240404042746 (Lali Devi Vs. Dhanai) was to be decided and based upon the instructions received it is stated that the case in issue has been decided vide order dated 22.04.2026 and therefore nothing survives in the instant petition accordingly the instant petition may be dismissed as infructuous.

¶14

Taking note of the aforesaid as also the observations made in various pronouncements, including rendered in the case(s) of J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 113; Lalit Mathur Vs. L. Maheswara Rao, (2000) 10 SCC 285; Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh, D.I.O.S., Ballia and others, 2003 (5) AWC 4393; Brahma Deo Tiwari Vs. Alok Tandon, District Magaistrate, Allahabad, 2004 (1) AWC 543; Shail Raj Kishore, Secretary, Education Basic, U.P. Lucknow and others, 2004 (3) AWC 2444; Anil Kumar Shahi (2) Vs. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav, (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 115 and Hari Raj Kishore Vs. Shiv Prasad Dubey, 2007(1) JCLR 639 , according to which merit of the case cannot be decided in the contempt jurisdiction.

¶15

Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the instant contempt petition/application is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. It is however with liberty to the applicant/petitioner to approach appropriate Forum/Court against the order dated 22.04.2026, if so aggrieved by it.

¶16

April 24, 2026

¶17

ML/-

¶18

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lali v. Sri Padmesh Srivastava Tehsildar Tehsil Alapur Ambedkar Nagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lali v. Sri Padmesh Srivastava Tehsildar Tehsil Alapur Ambedkar Nagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shiv Govind Trivedi vs Sanjeev Kumar Singh, District Inspector of Schools Raebareli

Meena Dwivedi vs Hublal Naib Tahsildar Jahagirganj Tehsil Alapur Distt. Ambedkar Nagar

Smt. Kirti Singh vs Shri Vishak G Iyer (Distt. Magistrate Lko.)

Amresh Bahadur Singh vs Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla Prin. Secy. Cooperative Lko. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Soni vs Mahesh Pratap Singh

Dr. Savinaya Narela vs Shri Ranjan Kumar, Addl.Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Ayush, U.P. Lko.