HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6914 of 2026 Court No. - 53 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Sharda Prasad Mishra along with Sri Subhash Chandra Maurya, learned counsel(s) for the applicants. 2. The present contempt application has been preferred, alleging wilful defiance of the order dated 04.02.2026 passed in Criminal Revision No. 599 of 2026, the parties in the said proceedings and the order is quoted herein under: "1. Maqsood Alam Son of Sarfaraaz, 2. Mehfooz Alam Son of Sarfaraaz, 3. Akhtar Rasool Son of Sarfaraaz, 4. Aftab Alam Son of Sarfaraaz, All are R/o of Village Kotwa, Police Station Lohta, Tehsil-Sadar, District- Varanasi. ...Revisionists VERSUS 1. State of U. P. through Principal Secretary (Home), U.P. at Lucknow. 2. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, District- Varanasi, 3. Zahid Farheed Son of Naseem Ahmad, 4. Sohail Mahmood Son of Naseem Ahmad, 5. Rizwanujma Son of Hazi Khurshid, 6. Aashiq Jamal Son of Hazi Khurshid, 7. Zaquir Hussain Son of Abdul Aziz, Opposite party no. 3 to 7 are resident of Village Kotwa, Pargana Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sharda Prasad Mishra, Subhash Chandra Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sajjad Ahamad And Another .....Applicant(s) Satyendra Kumar And 15 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Kaswaraza, Tehsil- Sadar, District- Varanasi. .......... Opposite parties 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State-opposite party nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 3 to 7. 2. The present criminal revision is preferred against the order dated 19.1.2026, passed by the Joint Magistrate/Sub- Divisional Magistrate (Sadar), District Varanasi in Case No. 50869 of 2025 (Computerized Case No. T202514700150869 (State Vs. Maqsood Alam and others), under Section 152 of BNSS, 2023, Police Station Lohta, District Varanasi. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the proceeding for dispossession under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2026 are also subjudice before the competent court of law. Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied at page 6 of the impugned order that the revisionists had purchased Aarazi No. 921-Ga by way of two sale deeds of respectively 2142 sq. feet and 700 sq. feet, total 2842 sq. feet and rest of the land are ancestral Abadi land of the revisionists. In the attached said Abadi, registered sale deeds of aforesaid area of 2842 sq. feets were executed in the year 1976 and 1978 respectively and since then they are in possession. The Lekhpal has submitted report without proper measurement. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submitted that regarding Aarazi No. 993 situated in village Kotwa which is a Naveen Parti land, a suit for dispossession under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code is pending before the court of Tehsildar (Judicial), Sadar, District Varanasi, hence two cases could not proceed for the same matter. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 3 to 7 has submitted that both the land are separate in this matter. The revisionists had made encroachment on public road. The proceedings has been initiated on the basis of opposite party- Zahid Fareed, who is not the owner but claims to be neighbour and that the road are being obstructed. The proceedings under Section 152 of BNSS is about Aarazi No. 993, whereas proceeding under Section 67 is also about Aarazi No. 993. 5. Prima facie, it appears that land in dispute is Aarazi No. 993 where proceedings for dispossession is also subjudice before the competent court of law under Section 67 of the CAPL No. 6914 of 2026 2 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, hence two separate proceedings is not appeared to be in consonance with the law. 6. The matter requires consideration. 7. Learned AGA appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 3 to 7 are hereby directed to file counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within next two weeks thereafter. 8. List after five weeks. 9. Meanwhile, further operation of impugned order dated 19.1.2026, passed by the Joint Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Sadar), District Varanasi in Case No. 50869 of 2025 (Computerized Case No. T202514700150869) (State Vs. Maqsood Alam and others), under Section 152 of BNSS, 2023, Police Station Lohta, District Varanasi, would remain stayed. However, it is made clear that this order would not affect the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code and that has to be decided in accordance with law." 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has further invited attention of the Court towards the order dated 19.01.2026 passed in Case No. 50869 of 2025, computerized Case No. T202514700150869, State Versus Maqsood Alam and others, under Section 152 of the BNSS, 2023, according to which, the subject matter in the said proceedings was the Arazi No. 993 and the order passed by the Joint Magistrate / Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Varanasi dated 19.01.2026 came to be stayed on 04.02.2026, however, while further inviting attention towards para-8, it is contended that the applicant happens to be the owner of the Arazi No. 921, area 2842 square meter situate at Village Kotwa, Pargana Kaswaraza, Tehsil - Sadar, District Varanasi. 4. Learned counsel(s) for the applicants submits that first of all the land of the applicant being Arazi No. 921-Ga, area 2842 square meter is distinct and different from Arazi No. 993, thus, there is no question of demolition and there happens to be an additional factor also that even otherwise also the construction on Arazi No. 993 could not have been demolished, particularly, when there was an interim order operating in the criminal revision in that regard. He further submits that the opposite parties on being inquired and asked as to why the constructions made over the Arazi No. 921-Ga have been demolished, the answer of the opposite party was under misconception. Thus, according to the learned counsel(s) for the applicants, there happens to be willful defiance of the orders of the Court. CAPL No. 6914 of 2026 3 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel(s) for the applicant and perused the record carefully. 6. Apparently, with respect to Arazi No. 993, there happened to be an order of the Joint Magistrate / Deputy District Magistrate, Sadar, Varanasi dated 19.01.2026 under Section 152 of the BNSS, 2023 which came to be challenged in Criminal Revision No. 599 of 2026 on 04.02.2026 wherein the said order was stayed. 7. Though according to the learned counsel(s) for the applicants, the applicants own Arazi No. 921Ga, area 2842 square meter which is separate and distinct from Arazi No. 993 but in the garb and guise of the order dated 19.01.2026, the constructions have been demolished, thus, there has been willful defiance of the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 599 of 2026, though looks attractive at the first blush but it may not detain the Court, particularly, when the remedy lies elsewhere regarding demolition. 8. The said factor assumes significance once the restraint order was with respect to Arazi No. 993 and the applicants own as per the claims set up by him Arazi No. 921Ga, area 2842. Once the same stood demolished for whatever reasons misconception or otherwise then the applicant has remedy before appropriate forum and definitely, it cannot be termed to be a case of contempt in that regard. 9. Accordingly, the contempt application is consigned to record, leaving it open to the applicant to question the same before appropriate forum. October 1, 2026 Ashu CAPL No. 6914 of 2026 4 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad