JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. Proceedings under Section 176 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 are pending. Initially on 13 February 2014, an order was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer during the pendency of the proceedings by which the Station Officer, Kamrauli was appointed as a receiver. Subsequently on 21 April 2014, an order was passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3285 (M/B) of 2014 filed by the petitioner, to the effect that if the Sub Divisional Officer who had passed the order dated 13 February 2014 was unable to attend to the grievance of the petitioner on account of election duty, the District Magistrate may nominate any other Sub Divisional Officer to ensure that the grievance of the petitioner is enquired into and an order is passed expeditiously for protecting the petitioner against irreparable injury, as alleged. The petitioner filed a contempt petition. When the contempt petition came up before the learned Single Judge on 27 May 2014, it was noticed in the order of the Court that the Sub Divisional Officer had, on 12 May 2014, recalled the earlier order passed by his predecessor and after calling for a report from the Tehsildar and Station Officer Kamrauli, appointed the village Pradhan and a resident as receivers after taking their consents. The learned Single Judge, holding that there was substantial compliance with the order of the writ Court, dismissed the contempt petition. 2. During the pendency of the contempt petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the District Magistrate, placing on record the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 12 May 2014. The petitioner has, in these proceedings, sought a direction for compliance of the order dated 13 February 2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in proceedings under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 3. As the record stands, it is clear that though by the earlier dated 13 February 2014, the Station Officer Kamrauli was appointed as a receiver, by the subsequent order dated 12 May 2014, the Sub Divisional Officer directed the Station Officer Kamrauli to appoint two persons as receivers. The basic fact which remains is that the interest of the petitioner was sought to be protected by directing the appointment of a receiver. The basic fact which remains is that the interest of the petitioner was sought to be protected by directing the appointment of a receiver. The grievance of the petitioner is that, as a matter of fact, the receiver has not been appointed as a result of which no steps have been taken to protect his interest and in consequence the standing crops have been damaged and cut. 4. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that it is expedient in the interest of justice that this grievance of the petitioner should be duly verified in order to ensure that the purpose of the order appointing the receiver is not defeated. We, therefore, direct the second respondent to personally verify as to whether the directions contained in the order dated 12 May 2014 have been faithfully and scrupulously implemented. If the directions have not been implemented, all necessary steps shall be taken and directions issued to ensure compliance with the order which has been passed in the proceedings under Section 176. 5. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.