HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4668 of 2024 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. The present contempt application has been preferred against the non compliance of the judgment and order dated 16.10.2024. The relevant paragraphs of the same are quoted hereinbelow:- "5. Petitioner may approach the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned who may get the facts verified as to whether the actual possession was handed over to the petitioner in response to his order or not and whether there is any other impediment in the possession of the land in question by the petitioner in pursuance to his order dated 22.06.2022 such as in the form of any order in favour of any other party in respect of the same land or not. If he finds that there is no legal impediment then he shall ensure suitable action in this regard keeping in mind the provisions of Section 24 read with Section 23of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and Rule 22 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 especially sub Rules 12 and 14 thereof. Let this exercise be completed within one month. If there is any impediment then the S.D.M. concerned shall inform the petitioner in writing. 6. With these observations/ direction, the petition is disposed of. 7. It is made clear that we have not at all adjudicated the rights of the petitioner and we have passed this order only on account of the order passed by the S.D.M. concerned under Section 24 of the Code, 2006 subject to the conditions mentioned herein." Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that a compliance affidavit has been filed on 07.02.2025 mentioning therein that Sunita and Nand Kishore have occupied a part of the land sold by the applicant by constructing a wall and a room. The demarcation proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has already been done and in case, any person occupies a land of a Bhumidhar or Asami without any right, then the remedy available is under Section 134 of the Code, 2006. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this Court while passing the judgment and order has directed to ensure suitable action in this regard keeping in mind the provisions of Section 24 read with Section 23 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and Rule 22 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. On being asked from the learned counsel for the applicant that the boundary wall raised by those persons are having any title on the land, he has replied Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Lal Yadav, Aparna Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Saroj Kumari .....Applicant(s) Ashish Singh, Sub Div. Magistrate Amethi .....Opposite Party(s) that they are having no title over the land. In that case, Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 will come into play which provides remedy for ejectment of persons occupying land without title. In this regard, notice has also been tried to serve upon the applicant but he refused to accept the same so the same was pasted on the wall of the house of the applicant. Once it is admitted that the boundary wall has been raised by an unauthorized person having no title then the remedy is under Section 134 of the Code, 2006 as stated in paragraph 7 of the compliance affidavit filed by the respondent in February, 2025 and against which till date, no objection has been filed. In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made herein-above, the judgment and order passed by the writ Court has been complied with and the present contempt application has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as infructuous. Notice, if any, stands discharged. December 4, 2025 Nitesh CAPL No. 4668 of 2024 2 (Manish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench