Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 119474 (ALL)

RAJ KUMARI AND 2 OTHERS v. ASHWANI KUMAR PANDEY SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE BAHRAICH AND 3 OTHERS

/202/2025 · 2025-01-27

Manish Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5049 Court No. - 17 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 202 of 2025 Applicant :- Raj Kumari And 2 Others Opposite Party :- Ashwani Kumar Pandey Sub Divisional Magistrate Bahraich And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pal Singh Yadav,Ashish Kumar Singh,Atul Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Heard. The present contempt application has been preferred under Section 10 of Contempt of Court Act for alleged non compliance of the interim order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the Additional Collector, Administration-I, Devi Patan Division, Bahraich in case no. 1874 of 2024, Computerized case no. C202408000001874 filed under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The relevant extract of the order is being quoted hereinbelow:- ".......... पशनगत आददश सद समबबधधत अवर नययययलय कक पतयवलल मबगयई जययद तथय अनय ववपकलगण कक जररयद नकवटस तलब वकयय जययद, ततपशचयत पतयवलल ससनवयई हदतस वदनयबक 20. 01. 2025 कक पदश हक। वववयवदत भभवम कद कय- ववकय सद उभयपकक कक अवगम आददश तक पवतबबधधत वकयय जयतय हह। " Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that during the pendency of the revision, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed an order after taking forcible consent from the applicant for the measurement of the land which is subject matter of the pending revision, hence, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has violated the order of status quo passed by the revisional court. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and going through the order which reveals that by interim order dated 16.12.2024, the revisional court has directed the parties not to sell or purchase the disputed land. This is not a general order of status quo as the learned counsel for the applicant has aruged. The order is specific. On being asked whether any of the parties before the revisional court has ever been sold the property in dispute, it has been very fairly replied by the learned counsel for the applicant that none of the parties have executed any sale deed of the disputed land. In view of the facts and discussion made hereinabove, no contempt is made out. The present contempt application is devoid of merits, hence, dismissed. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Nitesh Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench