Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10356 Court No. - 17 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 461 of 2025 Applicant :- Jai Prakash Jaiswal Opposite Party :- Sri Nikhil Kumar, Tahsildar, Tanda Ambedkar Nagar Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Srivastava,Anand Dubey Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. The present application has been filed for non compliance of the order dated 21.09.2022. The relevant extract of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: "Considering the aforesaid and the facts that the proceedings under Section 67(1) of the Revenue Code, 2006 has already been initiated and the matter is sub judice before the competent Court, thus, no fruitful purpose would be served to keep this case pending before this Court, thus, the present writ petition is disposed of finally. It is expected that the case under Section 67(1) of the Revenue Code, 2006 shall be decided expeditiously." Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that despite directions issued by the writ court to decide the matter expeditiously till date the proceedings under section 67(1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have not been decided and the matter is still pending which amounts to willful disobedience on the part of respondent. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and gone through the record, it is found that in the judgment and order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the writ court, it had been observed that it is expected that the case under Section 67 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 shall be decided expeditiously. There is no positive direction. Even though, the contempt application is to be filed within a period of one year from the date of cause of action arose for the first time. In case the said expeditious period may be treated as three months i.e. it is provided under the Act that every endeavour shall be made to decide the proceedings under Section 67 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code within a period of 90 days and the said period had already expired on 21.12.2022 and one year period from thereof had already expired on 21.12.2023 and the present contempt application has been preferred after a delay of more than one year and about one and a half month. As per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1971), 'no court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise after the expiry of the period of one year from the date on which, the contempt is alleged to have been committed'. On being asked from the learned counsel for the applicant to address the Court on Section 20 of the Act, 1971 as one year period had expired on 21.09.2023 whereas the present contempt application has been filed on 13.02.2025, learned counsel for the applicant is unable to assist the court on the query put by the court to advance the submissions relating to Section 20 of the Act, 1971. In the case of Islammudin vs. Umesh Chandra Tiwari and Anr. [2009 (5) ADJ 656 (DB)], the Division Bench of this Court has held that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pallav Sheth vs. Costodian and Ors. [(2001) 7 SCC 549] does not make Section 5 of the Act 1963 applicable and would not confer power upon the Court to condone or waive delay where proceedings of contempt are sought to be initiated under the Act, 1971 after one year from the date when the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In view of above, the present case is barred by Section 20 of the Act, 1971, hence the same is dismissed having approached the Court on 13.02.2025 i.e. after about more than one year and about one and a half month from the date of expiry of one year period from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Renu/- Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench