Dismissed¶30

Ramjeet Yadav v. Shailesh Kumar, Tehsildar / Assistant Collector, Tehsil-Budhanpur

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2026CAPL/4562/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt application against Tehsildar for non-compliance with order dated 13.10.2022 under Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 dismissed; interim status quo order dated 16.04.2025 in Writ-C No. 10246 of 2025 (Lalchand) barred eviction; appeal under Section 67(5) dismissed 05.12.2024 by Chief Revenue Officer, Azamgarh; demarcation of Gata No. 48/0.031 hectare, Village Kalhora, Pargana Kaudiya, Tehsil Budhanpur, District Azamgarh raised in connected writ; affidavit of compliance taken on record; bailable warrant discharged; single judge Rohit Ranjan Agarwal.

What did the court decide?

Contempt application dismissed; bailable warrant stands discharged. ¶30

Ramjeet Yadav Vs Shailesh Kumar, Tehsildar / Assistant Collector, Tehsil-Budhanpur — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4562 of 2025

¶3

Ramjeet Yadav

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus Shailesh Kumar, Tehsildar / Assistant Collector, Tehsil-Budhanpur .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Krishna Mishra, Suresh Chand Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶6

Court No. - 9

¶7

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

¶8

Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Tehsildar, Tehsil- Budhanpur, District- Azamgarh is present in the Court today, who is identified by Sri Manoj Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.

¶9

An affidavit of compliance has been filed today, which is taken on record.

¶10

It is contended by learned Standing Counsel that the order date 13.10.2022 passed in proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 could not be complied with as against the said order, an appeal under Section 67(5) was filed by one Lalchand before the Chief Revenue Officer, Azamgarh which was dismissed on 05.12.2024. Lalchand preferred Writ-C No.10246 of 2025 before this Court, in which, the writ Court had passed an interim order on 16.04.2025 directing the parties to maintain status quo and following order was passed:-

¶11

"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking following relief :-

¶13

"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the effect and operation of the order dated 05-12-2024 passed by the Respondent No 3, in Case No. 2393 of 2024, Computerized Case No. D202415060002393, Lal Chandra Versus Tehsildar Budhanpur, Under

¶14

CAPL No. 4562 of 2025

¶15

¶16

Section 67(5) U.P. Revenue Code., as well as the order dated 13-10-2022, passed by the respondent No.4, in Case No. 2850 of 2022 Computerized Case No. T202215060602850 Report Versus Lal Chandra, Under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code.

¶17

(II)- Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to proceed further only after proper demarcation of the land in dispute bearing Gata No. 48/0.031 Hectare Situated at WillageKalhora, Pargana-Kaudiya, Tehsil-Budhanpur, District- Azamgarh, and the proceedings shall be directed to be completed within stipulated time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶18

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that against an ex parte order passed by Tehsildar under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, an appeal was filed by the petitioner wherein various grounds were taken by the petitioner and objection was taken that the order has been passed without their being any demarcation of land. Petitioner prayed before the Appellate Court that before deciding the appeal, land in dispute be demarcated. Appeal has been dismissed on the ground that petitioner ought to have file such application before the Tehsildar which he has not done, therefore, no such demarcation can be made. No finding on the objections taken by the petitioner has been recorded by the Appellate Court and has mechanically confirmed the order impugned.

¶19

4. Respondents No.1 to 4 are represented by learned Standing Counsel.

¶20

5. Respondent No.5 is represented by Shri R.P. Shukla, Advocate.

¶21

6. Respondents are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

¶22

7. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶23

8. List thereafter.

¶24

9. Till then, parties are directed to maintain status quo."