HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2696 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. 1. Heard. 2. The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non- compliance of judgement and order dated 29.04.2025 passed in the Matter Under Article 227 No.2438 of 2025. For convenience, the relevant extract of the judgement and order dated 29.04.2025 is quoted hereinbelow: "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping this petition pending. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1/Collector/Upper Collector, Gonda to conclude the proceedings in issue most expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed in the case, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard." 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in compliance of judgement and order dated 29.04.2025 the Respondent No.1/Collector/ Upper Collector, Gonda has decided / rejected the appeal preferred by the respondent in the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by order dated 27.06.2025 and uphold the order passed by the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Kumar Srivastava Ram Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Devki Nandan Pandey .....Applicant(s) Ashok Kumar Gupta, Sub Divisional Magistrate Distt. Gonda And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Tehsildar, but the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not making any effort to remove the encroachment. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present contempt application as the applicant/ petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy to move an application under Section 214 of U.P. Revenue code, 2006 read with para 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual to remove the encroachment. 4. On being asked from the learned counsel for the applicant whether the remedy is available with applicant to move an application for execution / implementation of order under Section 214 of U.P. Revenue code, 2006 read with Para 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, he has very fairly submitted that in case the order is not implemented, the remedy is available with him as stated above. 5. Apart from that there was a direction only for the respondent No.1 to decide the appeal which he had decided. 6. In view of above facts and circumstances, the present contempt application is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. August 27, 2025 S. Kumar CAPL No. 2696 of 2025 2 (Manish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench