Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2507 (ALL)

Akhilesh Kumar Sachan v. Udai Raj Singh Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Lucknow

2018-12-10

ABDUL MOIN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Abdul Moin, J. Heard. 1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non compliance of the order dated 18.8.2015. For the sake of convenience, operative portion of the order dated 18.8.2015 is reproduced below:- "During the course of the hearing, it has emerged before the Court that the appropriate manner in which the dispute can be resolved is to have a demarcation carried out so that the exact boundaries of the holdings in which the petitioners claim interest is duly settled and resolved. We, accordingly, permit the petitioners to apply for demarcation and direct that if such an application is made, a demarcation shall be carried out in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Thereafter, we leave it open to the petitioners if they are still aggrieved to pursue the appropriate remedy which is available in law. 2. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of in these terms. There shall be no order as to costs." 3. After filing of the contempt petition and not finding the demarcation having been done, this Court had passed various orders. Consequently, a supplementary affidavit of compliance dated 11.1.2018 had been filed. In the said affidavit starting from paragraph 5 onwards the difficulties in carrying out the demarcation in pursuance of the direction of the writ Court, have been spelled out. It has also been indicated in sub paragraph 5 of the said affidavit that the respondent/contemnor has got necessary measurement conducted against the claim of the petitioner and the petitioner has been found having excess possession over certain area. The spot memo prepared dated 3.7.2017 and the decision taken in the matter dated 4.7.2017 have been annexed as Annexure-1 and 2 to the said affidavit of compliance. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently disputes that any such demarcation was carried out after associating him. 4. Upon a specific query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to when he applied for demarcation of his plots, learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this Court towards Annexure-3 to the contempt petition which is an application dated 25.8.2015. It is submitted that this is the only application which has been submitted for demarcation against which the aforesaid report has been submitted by the respondent. 5. It is submitted that this is the only application which has been submitted for demarcation against which the aforesaid report has been submitted by the respondent. 5. Sri Mohit Jauhari, learned counsel for the respondent/contemnor has contended that an application had to be preferred by the petitioner in terms of Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for the purpose of demarcation, which the petitioners have failed to do till date. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners submitted the representation dated 25.8.2015, as already indicated above, for demarcation of their plots and the respondents were under obligation to proceed with the same accordingly. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and having perused the record, what this Court finds is that once the writ Court vide order dated 18.8.2015 directed the petitioners to apply for demarcation and further directed that if such an application is made, the demarcation shall be carried out in accordance with law, consequently the petitioners were under an obligation to apply for demarcation in accordance with law i.e. in accordance with Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. No such application under the provisions of the said Act appears to have been moved till date. The petitioners, under a bonafide impression of having applied for such demarcation in pursuance of the direction of the writ Court by preferring a representation for the same, were proceeding with the matter and the contempt petition remained pending in which various compliance affidavits have been filed. Even the application, which has been filed by the petitioner dated 25.8.2015, is not clear and categoric pertaining to as to which plots are to be demarcated. Consequently, it cannot be said that the respondents are in contempt. However, at the same time the petitioners have been bonafidely pursuing the present contempt petition before this Court. 8. As such, keeping in view the aforesaid fact and situation, this Court while exercising the power of contempt would have to consider as to whether any order can be issued while exercising the power of contempt. In order to do complete justice between the parties and to ensure that the contemnor or his beneficiaries do not derive any advantage by committing contempt. In order to do complete justice between the parties and to ensure that the contemnor or his beneficiaries do not derive any advantage by committing contempt. In this regard it has been held in several cases that contempt Court may issue directions which may be referable to Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Reference may be made to the following decisions:- (i) Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.865 of 2004 In re: Smt. Shail Vs. Manoj Kumar and others decided on 29.3.2004. (ii) Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chandra reported in AIR 2003 SC 3044 . (iii) Vidya Charan Shukla Vs. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association and others reported in AIR 1991 Madras 323. (iv) Sukhdev Singh Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice Teja Singh reported in AIR 1954 SC 186 . (v) Smt.Abida Begum Vs. R.C.E.O. reported in AIR 1959 All 657. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, the law laid down as indicated above and the fact that the petitioners were bonafidely pursing the contempt proceeding and in order to do complete justice between the parties, it is provided that it is open for the petitioners to apply for demarcation in terms of the order issued by the writ Court dated 18.8.2018 in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Revenue Code, 2006 within 30 days. Thereafter the respondents shall proceed to decide the said application within a period of three months, which is the time as has now come into force in view of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. After the demarcation is carried out in accordance with law, the said report shall be submitted to the petitioners within the time specified. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by the report so submitted by the respondents then it would be open for him to pursue the remedy available to them in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of and the notices are discharged.