HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3014 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. 1. Shri Mayank Mishra, Tehsildar, Jaisinghpur - respondent is present in person. 2. The pairokar sent by respondent alongwith instruction has informed the Standing Counsel that the respondent has not given any Vakakatnama in favour of Sri Prabhakar Tiwari, who has filed Vakalatnama on his behalf in the present case, whereas Sri Prabhakar Tiwari, learned counsel has submitted that it was provided by the respondent, so this Court has passed an order for appearance of respondent alongwith the person who has given instruction to the learned Standing Counsel. Both persons i.e. respondent and pairokar are present before this Court. 3. Sri Nitesh Yadav, pairokar, has made a statement before this Court that the respondent had instructed him to inform the learned Standing Counsel that he has not provided any Vakalatnama to Sri Prabhakar Tiwari to appear in the present case. 4. The respondent has submitted that there might be some miscommunication as he has provided Vakalatnama to Sri Prabhakar Tiwari, learned Advocate. 5. If the respondent has provided Vakakatnama to Sri Prabhakar Tiwari then what was the occasion for him to forward the instruction alongwith order to learned Standing Counsel. 6. At this stage, the respondent has submitted that there may be some miscommunication and has given undertaking that he will be careful in future in sending the instruction to the learned Standing Counsel for the purpose of filing counter affidavit or making submission before the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saryu Prasad Tiwari, Prince Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Prabhakar Tiwari Narendra Prasad Upadhyay .....Applicant(s) Shri Mayank Mishra, Tehsildar, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, Sultanpur .....Opposite Party(s) Court. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed copy of order dated 10.11.2025 whereby the proceedings under Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been decided, copy of the same has been provided during course of argument, which is taken on record and photocopy of the same has been provided to the counsel for the applicant. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the judgement and order passed by the writ court has been complied with and the present contempt application has become infructuous and the same may be dismissed as such. 9. On the other hand learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the encroachment has not been removed as directed in the judgement and order passed in the writ petition. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the direction in the judgement and order of the writ court is a general direction i.e "all public utility land of the Gaon Sabha in question is free from encroachment", so it was general direction to the authorities and not in any particular matter. For execution / implementation / compliance of the order passed under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, the applicant has a remedy to file an application under para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the present contempt application has become infructuous and it is dismissed as such. . 12. Notice issued earlier, if any, stands discharged. November 13, 2025 S. Kumar CAPL No. 3014 of 2025 2 (Manish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench