Dismissed¶14

Ramapati Maurya v. Shri Umesh Chandr Yadav Presently Posted Tehsildar Kadipur Sultanpur and Another

Allahabad HC10 Mar 2026CAPL/851/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 8; Contempt Application (Civil) No. 851 of 2026, decided March 10, 2026 by Manish Kumar, J.; Ramapati Maurya v. Shri Umesh Chandr Yadav, Tehsildar, Kadipur, Sultanpur and another; contempt for alleged non-compliance of order dated 12.09.2025 directing conclusion of Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 proceedings within 90 days; no proof of service of representation dated 26.09.2025; dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file afresh; return of certified copies.

What did the court decide?

Contempt application dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file afresh; Office directed to return the certified copy of the documents, if any, to learned counsel for the applicant while retaining photocopy of the same. ¶14

Ramapati Maurya vs Shri Umesh Chandr Yadav Presently Posted Tehsildar Kadipur Sultanpur and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 851 of 2026

Ramapati Maurya

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Shri Umesh Chandr Yadav Presently Posted Tehsildar Kadipur Sultanpur And Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Kumar, Rajkumar Chaurasia Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶7

Court No. - 8

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶9

Present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 12.09.2025. The relevant part of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶10

"3. Learned Standing Counsel, based upon the instructions, states that the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have already been initiated and are pending.

¶11

4. In view of the said statement, the present petition is disposed of with direction to conclude the proceedings expeditiously within the time prescribed under the statute, i.e., 90 days."

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show any document regarding service of representation dated 26.09.2025 upon the respondent, simply a representation has been enclosed as annexure no. 2 to the paper book without there being any proof of service either personally or by registered post.

¶13

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of present case and the same may be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file afresh contempt application.

¶14

As such, the present contempt application is dismissed as not pressed with liberty, as prayed for.

¶15

Office is directed to return the certified copy of the documents, if any, to the learned counsel for the applicant while retaining photocopy of the same.

¶16

March 10, 2026 Ashish

¶17

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramapati Maurya v. Shri Umesh Chandr Yadav Presently Posted Tehsildar Kadipur Sultanpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramapati Maurya v. Shri Umesh Chandr Yadav Presently Posted Tehsildar Kadipur Sultanpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rai Ravindra Kishor Srivastava vs Rajeev Kumar, the Chief Engineer (E-3) U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Lko. and Another

Fazrul Rahman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Virendra Singh vs Sri Vaibhav Srivastava Managing Director Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Lko.

Amrit Lal Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Lilavati vs Shri Pranay Singh, Sub Divisional Magistrate Sultanpur