Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23640-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 95 of 2025 Appellant :- Shiv Shankar Respondent :- Ravindra Kumar Mandar and 2 others Counsel for Appellant :- Jagannath Singh, Surendra Nath Singh Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 05.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Contempt Application (Civil) No.491 of 2025, whereby the contempt application filed by the appellant has been dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- and directions have been given that the cost be recovered from the appellant as arrears of land revenue by the Collector, Allahabad within one month from the date of the order and the same shall be reported to the Court. 2. The contempt application was filed by the appellant alleging disobedience of order dated 28.05.2014 passed in Om Prakash Verma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2014 (5) ADJ 427. It was alleged that despite general mandamus issued by the Court, on the application made by the appellant for removal of alleged encroachments, the authorities i.e. the District Collector, Sub Divisional Officer and Tehsildar have not acted and as such, they be hauled up for contempt of order dated 28.05.2014. 3. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the counsel for the appellant, came to the conclusion that the persons, who were recorded in the revenue record, unless the entries were corrected under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, they cannot be considered as encroachers and be removed under Section 67 of the Code, that the application was a case of arm twisting and a means to harass the persons who were in possession of the plots and was a misuse of the process of the Court, consequently, dismissed the contempt petition and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, made submissions that the challenge made in the present appeal is only to the extent of cost imposed. Submissions were sought to be made seeking to justify the filing of the contempt petition in relation to the general directions issued by the Court on 28.05.2014 in the case of Om Prakash Verma (supra). It was sought to be emphasized that the appellant was ill-advised in filing the contempt application without adopting due procedure in accordance with law and therefore, though the appellant is not questioning the dismissal of the contempt application, the cost may be made easy. 5. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 6. Filing of Public Interest Litigations and contempt applications based on general mandamus issued by the Court, like judgement in the case of Om Prakash Verma (supra), has become a trend wherein those in settled possession over decades, are sought to be dispossessed by way of approaching the Courts by filing PILs and contempt applications. The underlying reason in most of the cases has been some personal vengeance against those who are sought to be uprooted/alleged as encroachers and therefore, the dismissal of the contempt application and imposition of the cost by the learned Single Judge, which is necessary for deterring persons from approaching the Court without any cause and wasting the time of the Court, cannot be faulted. 7. However, looking to the fact that counsel has indicated that the appellant was ill-advised in filing the contempt application, we deem it appropriate and, therefore, reduce the cost from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-, which would be required to be deposited by the appellant with the Legal Services Committee of this Court and, in case, the same is not deposited, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue, as already ordered by learned Single Judge. 8. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 RK/SL (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad