HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1233 of 2025 Kunwar Surendra Singh …..Petitioners(s) Versus Harshita Mathur, D.M., Rae Bareily And 9 Others …..Respondents(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Akshat Kuma Counsel for Respondent(s) : Avinash Singh Vishen, Shishir Raj And CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 946 of 2025 Kunwar Surendra Singh …..Petitioners(s) Versus Harshita Mathur, D.M., Rae Bareli And 6 Others …..Respondents(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Akshat Kuma Counsel for Respondent(s) : Avinash Singh Vishen, Shishir Raj Court No. - 5 HON’BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Shri Vivek Raj Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Shantanu Sharma, on behalf of the applicant, and Shri Anuruddh Singh, holding brief for Shri Akshat Kumar, on behalf of the applicant, and Ajit Kumar on behalf of the applicant, and Shri Anuruddh Singh, on behalf of 2 respondents no. 1 to 5 and 9 and 10 and Shri Avinash Singh Visen, holding brief of Shri Sishir Raj, on behalf of respondents no. 6 to 8. 2. Both the contempt applications heard together and are being disposed off by the common order as the dispute pertains to the same property between the same parties. 3. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the present proceedings have arisen out of a property dispute pertaining to the property situated at Village Undwa, Unchahar, District Rai Bareli, where the petitioner and their family members claim to be the owners of the said property and have been in continuous possession. It has further been submitted that the name of the applicant and his brothers was mutated in the revenue records on 31.12.2012 by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Maharajganj, District Rai Bareli, and subsequently, opposite party no. 6 and 7 started to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that even the order of mutation passed in favour of the petitioner was subjected to several rounds of litigation before the Revenue Authorities, and finally, the appeal filed before the Board of Revenue at the behest of the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 07.03.2025. And the matter is presently pending in writ proceedings before this Court in Writ Petition No. Writ - B No. 237 of 2025, Kunwar Surendra Singh vs. Board of Revenue and others. It has been submitted that it is in the aforesaid writ petition that this Court while issuing notices to the respondents, made certain observations as quoted in paragraph 14 14. Since the aforesaid aspect is still open for consideration and the impugned orders have already been implemented in the revenue records, without staying the effect of impugned orders, it is provided that mutation effected in pursuance of impugend orders shall be only for purposes of payment of land revenue and no party shall derive any title or right over the properties in question from the impugned orders. The aspect of merits title may 3 be adjudicated in regular civil proceedings, if any, without being guided by impugned orders. 4. It has been alleged by the applicant that the order dated 12.03.2025, was violated by opposite party no. 6 and 7. Inasmuch as that on the very same day when the order was passed, the private respondents started interfering in the possession of the petitioner and accordingly, contempt petition bearing Contempt Application Civil No.946 of 2025 was filed alleging disobedience of the order of the Court dated 12.03.2025. It was submitted that in the said petition, in para 14, it has clearly been stated that opposite party no. 6 and 7, even after knowledge of the order dated 12.03.2025, passed in Writ -B No.237 of 2025, went against and started creating disturbance in the possession of the applicant over the disputed property and tried to dispossess him. It has further been submitted that the order dated 12.03.2025, was uploaded on the website of the High Court on 18.03.2025, and a certified copy of the same was only obtained on 24.03.2025, and only thereafter the copy was served on the other side. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that a detailed hearing was conducted on 03.04.2025, but notices were not issued. And the counsel for the State respondents was asked to seek instructions in the matter. 5. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that this Court, by means of the order dated 12.03.2025, had merely observed that mutation proceedings are only for the purpose of payment of land revenue, and even though the said proceedings were pending before this Court only protection granted was that no party shall derive any title, or rights of the property in question over from the orders impugned. It is the case of the applicant that on the same day itself, the private respondents tried to interfere in the possession of the petitioner and have accordingly violated the order of this Court amounting to contempt. 6. Considering the arguments of the petitioner, I find that no specific directions were issued to the private respondents, restraining them from interfering in the possession of the applicant. I further find that the copy of the order dated 12.03.2025 was obtained by the petitioner only on 4 24.03.2025, and certainly the said order was served much after obtaining the certified copy of the order and in any view of the matter, I do not find that the order dated 12.03.2025 was served on the respondents prior to the allegations leveled that they had tried to interfere in the possession of the petitioner on the same day and accordingly it cannot be said that the order dated 12.03.2025 was on the knowledge of the opposite party and therefore, it cannot be said that there was any wilfull disobedience of the orders of this Court. 7. Petitioner even in his applicant has stated, that he tried to serve opposite parties no.1, 2,3 and 4, who are the authorities of the state respondents, but none of them either received the said order or gave the acknowledgment. 8. From the aforesaid, it is clear that firstly, there is no allegation regarding violation of any order passed by this Court on 12.03.2025 with regard to opposite parties no. 1 to 4 and secondly the allegations pertain only to respondents no. 6 and 7, who had not been served with the orders of this Court. 9. To bring home the charge of contempt, it has to be demonstrated that there is deliberate and willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. In case, the orders of this Court are not served, or are not in the knowledge of any of the parties, then knowledge it cannot be presumed of the party against whom allegations of contempt has been made. It is only then there is a clear demonstration that there is willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by this Court that proceedings for contempt are made out. 10. Accordingly, firstly, we are not satisfied from perusal of the petition that opposite party no.6 and 7 had knowledge about the order passed by this Court dated 12.03.2025, and even otherwise, I do not find that said order contains any direction restraining the private respondents from interfering in the possession of the petitioner. The observations of this Court were only to the effect that no party shall derive any title or right over the property in question thereby observing that the revenue records 5 indicating the mutation from land in favour of either of the parties shall not form the basis of any benefit which can be derived by any of the parties. 11. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, I do not find that there has been any willful disobedience of the Court order dated 12.03.2025, and accordingly, Contempt Application No.946 of 2025 is rejected. 12. Considering the second petition preferred by the petitioner which is contempt Application No.1233 of 2025, there are certain additional facts pertaining to filing of the civil suit by the respondent no. 6 and 7 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raebareli. The petitioner is seeking injuction to restrain them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the disputed property. The said suit was filed on 12.03.2025, and an ad interim injunction was passed in favour of the respondents no.6 and 7 of the same day itself. According to the interim order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raebareli. It was observed that the plaintiffs have produced a Khatauni with regard to Gata Nos.582, 583, 584, and an order for mutation dated 13.01.2025, and certain other documents indicating that the disputed properties recorded in their name, and after verifying the aforesaid documents, the trial proceeded to pass an interim order restraining the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner. Against the order dated 12.03.2025, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition being writ petition No. Matter Under Article 227 No.1862 of 2025, assailing the order of the trial court dated 12.03.2025. 13. It was submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the suit filed by the respondents no. 6 and 7 was registered on 17.03.2025 and, therefore, before registration of the said case, the trial court could not proceed to pass any order in favour of the private respondents. 14. To ascertain the factual aspect of the matter, this Court had called for the original registers maintained by the trial court and, after examining the entire records, the Court was of the considered view that the suit was in fact registered on 17.03.2025 and, apart from the above, I find that the 6 manner of exercise of the power by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) was wholly illegal and arbitrary, having no sanction of law and not known to the process of decision making prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code and consequently, quashed the order dated 12.03.2025. It further directed that the District Judge, Raebareli to relegate the file to any other Civil Judge (Junior Division) where both the parties would be heard and the order be passed afresh on the application for injunction. 15. Both the parties have informed this Court that they have been heard on the application for injunction but no orders have been passed. 16. Facts giving rise to the second contempt petition are that after passing the order of injunction dated 12.03.2025, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raebareli further proceeded to write a letter to the officer in charge, police station Kotwali Nagar, Raebareli giving reference of the suit proceedings in Case No. 613 of 2015, where the order dated 12.03.2025 had been passed by him/her, and further recorded that despite the passing of the said order, there are allegations of regular interference by the defendants in the suit proceeding, and therefore, in exercise of power under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, directed him to comply with the order of the Court. 17. In the contempt petition, the petitioner had submitted that in paragraph 19 that on 29.03.2025, opposite parties no.6 and 7, along with opposite party no.2 i.e. SDM, Tehsil - Sadar, District Raebareli, and number of police personnel reached the disputed property and forcibly dispossessed the applicant under the garb of demarcating the said property. It has further been stated that once the order of this Court dated 09.04.2025 has been passed thereby setting aside the order of injunction granted in favour of respondents no. 6 and 7, then the property ought to have been handed back to the petitioner after evicting opposite parties no. 6 and 7 since they had forcefully taken over possession of 29.03.2025. It has been submitted that accordingly, firstly by forcefully taking possession of 19.03.2025, the opposite parties have deliberately violated the order of this Court dated 12.03.2025, and subsequently 7 when they have not restored the possession back to the petitioner; they have violated the order of this Court dated 09.04.2025. 18. In the present case, notices have been issued to all the opposite parties, who have filed their response. On behalf of the State respondents, it has been submitted that they were carrying out a demarcation proceedings on 29.03.2025 in pursuance to the orders of trial court. Response filed by the State Officials i.e. respondents no. 2 to 5 and 9 and 10, it has been stated that they have received the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) dated 12.03.2025 where the petitioner had been restrained from interfering in the peaceful position of opposite party no. 6 and 7. Apart from the aforesaid order, they were also in receipt of the letter dated 24/3/2025 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) directing them to comply with the previous order dated 12.03.2025. It is stated that the police authorities in order comply with the directions of the aforesaid orders, had sought the assistance of the revenue officials to identify the disputed property so that adequate action could be taken as per the orders of the trial court. 19. It is for the aforesaid reason that certain police personnel along with some officers had gone to the disputed property for the purpose of identification. It has been categorically stated that neither was the possession of any person taken, nor was the possession handed over to any person during this exercise, and accordingly, have denied the assertions made by the petitioner in this regard. In the counter filed by respondents no. 6 and 7. It has been stated that the disputed property is in possession of the opposite party no. 6 and 7, and accordingly, there was no question of allegation of dispossession made by the petitioner. He has further submitted that in any view of the matter, the High Court had not issued any direction with regard to interference in possession by either of the parties, and consequently, the allegations leveled by the petitioner are not made out and prayed for dismissal of the contempt petition. 20. This Court has heard the rival contentions and perused the record. 8 21. From the material on record, it is evident that, firstly, the suit proceedings instituted by respondents no. 6 and 7 resulted in ad interim injunction dated 12.03.2025 in their favour restraining the petitioner from interfering in their possession. Apart from the above, I find that by a letter dated 24.03.2025, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) had written a letter to the police officer in-charge, police station Sadar, Raebareli, directing him to comply with the orders passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division). On the interference of this Court, in writ petition No.1862 of 2025, the order dated 12.03.2025 was set aside, and the matter is restored to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) to decide the aspect of injunction afresh. 22. From the allegations leveled by the petitioner in the present contemt petition, I find that there was no order restraining the respondents from interfering in the possession of the petitioner. By allowing the writ petition, this Court had set aside the order dated 12.03.2025, and on the date on which the content is alleged i.e. 29/3/2025, the order dated 09.04.2025 was not existing, and only the order dated 12.03.2025 was existing in writ petition being Writ - B No. 237 of 2025. As I have already discussed even in the said writ petition there was no effective orders of restrain of either party on the disputed property. The order was only that no parties shall derive any title or right over the property in question from the impugned orders. 23. Accordingly, I do not find that the allegations levied by the petitioner with regard to the incident occurring on 29.03.2025, even if they are correct, amounts to willful or deliberate violation of any order the Court in any manner whatsoever. 24. The second aspect raised by the petitioner is with regard to the restitution of his possession over the property subsequent to the order and judgment of this Court dated 09.04.2025 passed in writ petition No.1862 of 2025. In this regard also, I find that this Court has set aside the order of trial court dated 12.03.2025 as well as the letter dated 24.03.2025, remitting the matter back for consideration afresh and there 9 also, no direction has been issued to either party to restore the status quo ante. I further find that there is no order with regard to either grant of possession or restraining any party from interfering in the possession, nor any order restoring the possession and therefore, in absence of any specific direction, the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent have restored the possession is without any basis, nor any judicial order much less amounting to contempt. 25. Accordingly, I find that the allegations of contempt are not made out. The contempt petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly, dismissed. However, from the aforesaid facts, we have discussed above, I find that the issue of possession is a hotly contested matter between the parties. I further find that a suit of injunction is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raebareli so as to prevent any further litigation and to maintain peace between the parties, and with the joint consent of the parties, this Court proceeds to pass the following further directions:- 26. Firstly of all, both the parties are prevented from making any interference in the disputed property, which will remain in their possession other than this no other order will be passed without any one’s consent. This Court will also move forward to consider and take a decision on a separate campaign as per the Code style.. September 2, 2025 KR (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench