HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6906 of 2026 Court No. - 53 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. The present contempt application has been preferred alleging willful defiance of the order dated 03.09.2026 passed in Writ-B No. 2190 of 2026, order whereof is quoted herein under:- "1. As in all the three writ petitions, the parties are same and the orders under challenge are same, therefore, they are being heard together for passing appropriate orders by treating the Writ-B No.2190 of 2026 as the lead case. 2. Heard Sri C. B. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 10, Sri Rajendra Kumar, holding brief of Sri A. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Gaon Sabha and Sri Rakesh Chandra Pathak, holding brief of Sri Satyendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 3. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of respondent no.10, dated 20.02.2026, passed in revision arising out of proceeding under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the preliminary decree lots were prepared and approved by the order dated 30.05.2006 passed in the suit for division of holdings. On a recall application moved by one Bhagwan Devi wife of Prahlad Singh, one of the co-tenure holders, the order dated 30.05.2006 was recalled by the order of the Deputy District Magistrate, dated 22.06.2006. Subsequently, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution by the order dated 06.07.2006. On the application moved by Shyam Sundar, the respondent no.3, the final decree was prepared on 19.10.2007 on the basis of order dated 30.05.2006. It is further submitted that on the basis of share allotted by the kurra phat, as approved by the order dated 30.05.2006, Shyam Sundar transferred his share to Virma Devi. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : In Person Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Krishn Gopal Advocate .....Applicant(s) Srimati Ashu Rani, Vice Chancler, Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar University And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Virma Devi, who purchased the share of Shyam Sundar with specific boundaries, moved a recall application for recalling the final decree. The Deputy District Magistrate though rejected the application of Virma Devi, the respondent no.2, however, set aside the final decree on the ground that it was prepared during dismissal of suit for non prosecution and the order dated 30.05.2006 confirming the lots had already been set aside. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy District Magistrate, dated 06.02.2021, the petitioner filed three revisions before the Commissioner of the Division, challenging the orders dated 22.06.2006, 06.07.2006 and 06.02.2021. All the three revisions were allowed by the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 01.08.2023. The revision filed by the respondent no.2, the predecessor of Shyam Sundar, the original co-tenure holder of the land in dispute, has been allowed by the respondent no.10 vide order dated 20.02.2026, restoring the order dated 06.02.2021. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the basis of order dated 06.02.2021 is the order dated 22.06.2006, which was passed on the application moved by the Bhagwan Devi, who was not the party to the suit. As the said order has been challenged by the petitioner in revision before the Commissioner, which has been set aside, the illegality referred to in the order dated 06.02.2021 ceases to exist. As the parties to the suit had already acted on the basis of kurras phat as approved by the order dated 30.05.2006, the recall of final decree on the basis of subsequent purchaser is uncalled for and the order dated 20.02.2026 is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, who had earlier granted time to bring on record the sale deed executed in favour of respondent no.2, could not satisfy the court that the sale deed executed in favour of respondent no.2 was not with specific boundaries according to lots prepared as approved by the order dated 30.5.2006. 7. Matter requires consideration. 8. Issue notice to the respondent nos.3 to 8. Steps be taken within a week by registered speed post. 9. All the respondents may file counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may also be filed within two weeks thereafter. 10. List thereafter. 11. Till the next date of listing, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo regarding the nature and possession of the land in dispute and shall not create any third party right during pendency of the present petition." 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the opposite CAPL No. 6906 of 2026 2 parties are not the parties to the subject writ petition. As the parties in the said writ petition, insofar as the writ petitioner is concerned, i.e. the father of the applicant being Hari Shankar, State of U.P., Vrinda Devi, Shyam Sundar, Mukesh Kumar, Dinesh Kumar, Brijesh Kumar, Bhagwan Devi, Amar Singh, Gram Sabha Mauja Bagharra, Post Naujheel, Tehsil Mant. He submits that now an order has been passed on 11.09.2026 forestalling the admission proceedings, copy whereof is quoted herein under:- "पत्रांक: सम्ब./1888/2026 िदनांक: 11/09/2026 सेवा में, प्रवेश समन्वयक, समथर्-2026-27 डॉ० भीमराव आंबेडकर िवश्विवद्यालय, आगरा। िवषय:- श्री लोकमिण शमार् महािवद्यालय, बाघरार्, नौहझील, मथुरा को सत्र 2026-27 की प्रवेश प्रिक्रया हेतु समथर् पोटर्ल पर लॉिगन खोले जाने के सम्बन्ध में। महोदय, मा० कु लपित जी के आदेश िदनांक 11.09.2026 के अनुपालन में तथा प्रकरण में गिठत जाँच सिमित द्वारा प्रस्तुत जाँच आख्या एवं माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद के नवीनतम आदेश िदनांक 03.09.2026 के क्रम में श्री लोकमिण शमार् महािवद्यालय, बाघरार्, नौहझील, मथुरा (कालेज कोड-497) को सत्र 2026-27 की प्रवेश प्रिक्रया में सिम्मिलत िकये जाने का िनणर्य िलया गया है। अतः उक्त के क्रम में श्री लोकमिण शमार् महािवद्यालय का समथर् पोटर्ल पर प्रवेश हेतु लॉिगन खोले जाने तथा सत्र 2026-27 की िनयमानुसार प्रवेश प्रिक्रया पूणर् कराने हेतु आवश्यक कायर्वाही सुिनिश्चत करने का कष्ट करें। भवदीय, [Sd/-] 11/9/26 सहा० कु लसिचव (सम्बद्धन)". 3. As per the applicant, the issue involved in the subject writ petition was pertaining to land. However, in the garb and guise of the same, now admission proceedings have been forestalled, thus, there is no correlation between them and hence the opposite party has committed willful defiance of the order of the writ Court. 4. In the opinion of the Court, first of all the opposite parties are not the CAPL No. 6906 of 2026 3 parties to the lis. However, might be in view of the judgement in the case of Israr Ahmad Khan Vs Amarnath and others, 2026 INSC 2209, a non- party becomes also liable for contempt once the order of the Court is put to his knowledge, but this Court in contempt jurisdiction is not required to delve into the merits of the matter while recording a conclusive finding that the order of the Court is nowhere connected with the order passed by the opposite parties. 5. 5. In view of the above, the contempt application is consigned to record leaving it open to the applicant to take legal remedy as permissible and advisable under law. October 1, 2026 N.S.Rathour CAPL No. 6906 of 2026 4 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad