HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6115 of 2026 Court No. - 53 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. The present contempt petition has been preferred alleging non-compliance of the order dated 30.07.2024 passed in Writ B No.2911 of 2024, the order whereof is quoted hereinunder: "Heard Shri Mohan Yadav under the authority of Shri Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Shri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, the Land Management Committee. Considering the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon private respondents is being dispensed with. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 24.5.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj in Case No. REV/872/2024/Gorakhpur (Nasirullah and others versus Addl. District Magistrate (F&R) and others) under Section 210 of the U.P.Revenue Code, 2006 whereby and whereunder the revision has been dismissed and the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate (F&R), Gorakhpur in proceedings under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were granted plantation lease in respect of the land bearing Gata No. 814M, area 0.10 discimal situate in village Basantpur Tola, Bhaiyapurwa Tappa Marivaisi, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Compierganj, District Gorakhpur by the competent Authority vide order dated 26.11.1987. Proceedings under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have been initiated after a lapse of 30 years. The petitioners have taken objections before the Addl. District Magistrate (F&R), Gorakhpur. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Board of Revenue has proceeded to reject the revision of the petitioners only on the ground Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sarvar Ali Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Nasirullah .....Applicant(s) Himanshu Verma .....Opposite Party(s) that the revision preferred by the petitioners were against an interlocutory order and the proceedings are pending before the Addl. District Magistrate (F&R), Gorakhpur. Even though, the petitioners had raised objections as regards the maintainability of the proceedings before the Addl. District Magistrate (F&R), Gorakhpur. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. Admittedly, the proceedings under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the petitioners are pending consideration before the Addl. District Magistrate (F&R), Gorakhpur and under the impugned order dated 14.12.2023, the case has been fixed for evidence and report from the Tehsildar, Campierganj, District Gorakhpur has been called for. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision, which has been rightly rejected by the order dated 24.5.2024, is not maintainable having been filed against the interlocutory proceedings. In the opinion of the Court, the order of the Board of Revenue does not require any interference by this Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner may pursue the proceedings initiated against him under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Addl. District Magistrate (F&R), Gorakhpur concerned. However, it is observed that the objections to the maintainability of the proceedings may be considered by the Addl. District Magistrate (F&R), Gorakhpur before passing final orders in the proceedings under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of." 2. The said order came to be corrected on 04.10.2024 which is quoted as under: "In Re.: Civil Misc. Correction Application No. 2 of 2024 This is an application for correction in the order dated 30.07.2024 whereby some corrections have been sought by learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and perused the order dated 30.07.2024. The correction application is allowed and the order dated 30.07.2024 stands corrected as under:- In the 4th line of 4th paragraph of the order dated 30.07.2024, the Tappa mentioned as Marivaisi is replaced by Tappa 'Bharivaisi'. Further, in the entire order dated 30.07.2024, the designation of the Respondent No. 3 mentioned as Addl. District Magistrate (F&R) Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur, is replaced by 'Addl. District Magistrate (L&R) Gorakhpur, CAPL No. 6115 of 2026 2 District Gorakhpur'. This order shall be treated as part of the order dated 30.07.2024." 3. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, proceedings under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been instituted. However, the same has not been decided. 4. In the opinion of the Court, once proceedings under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been instituted and the same stands registered then the same is to be decided strictly as per the mandate of the statute. 5. Accordingly, the contempt application is consigned to record leaving it open to the applicant to press the same before the concerned competent authority who shall decide the same with most expedition without granting unnecessary adjournments and, in case, the same is not decided within the given time and there is no legal impediment, it shall be open for the applicant to again approach before this Court. September 8, 2026 Ashu CAPL No. 6115 of 2026 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad