Dismissed¶15

Vinod Kumar Mishra and Another v. Sanjeev Ranjan District Magistrate Pratapgarh and Others

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2026CAPL/154/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 8; Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J. Contempt Application (Civil) No. 154 of 2024 — Vinod Kumar Mishra and Another v. Sanjeev Ranjan, District Magistrate, Pratapgarh and Others. Contempt application alleging violation of the writ Court's interim order maintaining status quo over joint, undivided family agricultural land; respondents contended the land is unpartitioned family property and not cultivated by either side; held no violation of the interim order; application dismissed as devoid of merits; notice discharged. Decided January 13, 2026.

What did the court decide?

There is no violation of the interim order passed by the writ Court. ¶15

Vinod Kumar Mishra and Another vs Sanjeev Ranjan District Magistrate Pratapgarh and Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 154 of 2024

¶3

Vinod Kumar Mishra And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sanjeev Ranjan District Magistrate Pratapgarh And Others .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Kumar Rao, Jay Prakash Singh, Kshitij Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Onkar Nath Singh Rathore

¶7

Court No. - 8

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶9

Ms. Anamika Singh, Advocate has put in appearance and has filed her vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 7 which is taken on record.

¶10

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 9, 10 & 11 is also taken on record.

¶11

In compliance of earlier order of this Court, respondent nos. 9, 10 & 11 are present before this Court.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that they are not alienating or transferring the land and not violating the interim order passed by the writ Court for maintaining the status quo.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the respondents are not permitting him to cultivate the fields.

¶14

In reply, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the applicants and the respondents are members of the same family having right/title over the land but the same has not been divided or partitioned till date, hence, they are not cultivating any part of the land in dispute as such there is no violation of the interim order passed by the writ Court, which learned counsel for the applicants is unable to dispute.

¶15

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, there is no violation of the interim order passed by the writ Court. The present contempt application is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed.

¶16

CAPL No. 154 of 2024

¶17

¶18

Notice, if any stands discharged.

¶19

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶20

January 13, 2026 Nitesh

¶21

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

Vinod Kumar Mishra and Another v. Sanjeev Ranjan District Magistrate Pratapgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Mishra and Another v. Sanjeev Ranjan District Magistrate Pratapgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chandra Shekhar Singh vs Shri Santosh Kumar Sinha, Addl. General Manager/Unit Head Iti Ltd. Gonda and Another

Arshad Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Neelam Singh vs Dr. Suresh Kumar, Chief Medical Officer, Distt. Sitapur

Smt. Pravesh Kanaujia vs Ms. Poppy Sharma General Manager (Hr) Central Bank of India Mumbai

Ram Raj vs Sri Naveen Khandelwal Divisional Director Social Forestry Division Sitapur

Manoj Kumar vs Sri Naveen Khandelwal Div. Dir. Social Forestry Div. Sitapur