Allahabad High Court
Saroj Bala Yadav vs Dhirendra Kumar Singh, D.M. And Another on 1 October, 2019
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 10 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6533 of 2019 Applicant :- Saroj Bala Yadav Opposite Party :- Dhirendra Kumar Singh, D.M. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Nath Singh Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
By order dated 24.9.2019 passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.3935 of 2018 filed by the applicant, the Court directed as under:
"A perusal of the said counter affidavit shows that the encroachments of respondent Nos. 5 to 8 over Plot No. 802 as alleged in the writ petition have already been removed. It has been further stated in the personal affidavit of the District Magistrate that Siya Ram and Parsu Ram were also found to have encroached over an area of 221 square yard and 262.5 square meter respectively over Plot No. 802. It has been further stated in the affidavit that an order dated 17.12.2009 was passed against the encroacher Siya Ram in proceedings registered under Section 122-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1950'), but the eviction order could not be implemented because in the meantime, Siya Ram had died. It has been stated that fresh proceedings under Section 67 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code, 2006') have been instituted against Jitendara and Babu Singh who are the sons of Siya Ram and notices have been issued to the aforesaid persons. It has been stated that the eviction order dated 21.11.2009 was passed against Parashu Ram in Eviction Suit No. 87 registered under Section 122-B of Act, 1950, but the said order could not be implemented and therefore a notice dated 11.09.2018 had been issued to the said Parashu Ram to vacate the said plot. It has been further stated in the affidavit that an inquiry has already been ordered against the erring revenue officials because of whose lethargy and incompetence the orders passed under Section 122-B were not implemented earlier.
In view of the facts stated in the personal affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, it would serve no useful purpose to keep the writ petition pending before this Court and therefore, the Assistant Collector, Tehsil- Mirganj, District-Bareilly is directed to decide the cases registered before him under Section 67 (1) of the Code, 2006 against Jitendra and Babu Singh within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him and in case the decision of the Assistant Collector is against the aforesaid persons, the eviction order shall be implemented within a period of two months thereafter unless the said order is stayed by any superior authority or court in any appeal or revision filed against the same. It is further directed that the Assistant Collector Tehsil Mirganj, District-Bareilly shall ensure that the notice dated 11.09.2018 issued to Parashu Ram to vacate 262.5 square meter over Plot No. 802 encroached by him, shall be implemented expeditiously within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him unless there is any legal impediment in the implementation of the said notice. It is further directed that the District Magistrate, Bareilly i.e. respondent No. 2 shall ensure compliance of the order passed by this Court.
Shri Girish Kumar Mishra appearing for the respondents stated that an application had been filed by the respondents under Section 101 of the Code 2006 praying for exchange of Gaon Sabha plots with their Bhumidhari plots and has relied upon a Government Order dated 09.07.2010 wherein it has been provided that such exchange could be allowed in public interest. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the application filed by the respondents under Section 101 Code 2006, it is directed that the said application shall be decided by the District Magistrate on its own merits.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of."
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite parties. Admittedly, in response of the aforesaid order dated 24.9.2018 the proceeding under Section 67 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been finalized against the incumbents, who have encroached upon the public utility land. He makes a statement at the bar that the incumbents, against whom proceeding has been finalized, have not assailed the validity of the same either in Appeal or in Revision and therefore, for all practical purposes the same has attained finality.
Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite parties to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite parties and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within three weeks from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self-addressed envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite party within one week thereafter and keep a recorded thereof.
The opposite parties shall comply with the directions of the writ court and intimate him of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite parties within the stipulated time as aforementioned.
Order Date :- 1.10.2019 RKP