Ram Raksha v. Jay Deet Kaur, Sub Divisional Magistrate and Another

Court No. - 9 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 8246 of 2023 Applicant :- Ram Raksha Opposite Party :- Jay Deet Kaur, Sub Divisional Magistrate And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Yadav Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. The writ Court on 29.07.2022 in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1256 of 2022 passed the following order:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and learned counsel for the respondent Gaon Sabha. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for following relief: "1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to remove all the illegal/unauthorized possession and encroachment over the public utility land Arazi/Khasra No. 12/665 area

0.0010 hectare and Arazi/Khasra No. 12 area 0.0340 hectare, which is recorded in revenue record as Naveen Parti and chak road respectively, situate in village-Subari (Prayagpur), Tehsil Meja, District Prayagraj." Learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha as well as learned Standing Counsel have raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy to approach revenue authority under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid legal position. In view of above, this Court declines to interfere in the matter at this stage with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It is provided that in the event petitioner approaches the appropriate forum by moving application within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed by the concerned authority strictly in accordance with law by following the procedure as prescribed for under U.P.Revenue Code, 2006, and the Rules 2016 after affording full opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties within a further period of two months, strictly in accordance with law. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of." From perusal of the order, it is clear that writ Court had declined to interfere in the matter. As the writ Court had declined to entertain the writ petition, no case for contempt is made out. The contempt application is misconceived and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 8.11.2023 V.S.Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad