Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4453 of 2019 Applicant :- Kamta Prasad Opposite Party :- Bhanu Chandra Goswami, District Magistrate Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Prajapati
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the respondents for disobedience of the order dated 13.12.2019 passed in PIL No.52 of 2019 (Kamta Prasad v. State of U.P. & Ors.).
For ready reference, the relevant extract of order dated 13.12.2019 is quoted as under:-
"Re: Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 2 of 2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit filed in support of this application.
Amendment application is allowed.
Office is directed to carry out necessary amendment. Re: Public Interest Litigation Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.
Present petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondent no. 3-Assitant Collector/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sorao, District Allahabad to take appropriate action for removal of unauthorized possession of the persons who are taken illegal posession on arazi no. 13 having area 1.4500 hectare recorded as pond in revenue record situated in village Semra Beerbhanpur, Tehsil Sorao, District Allahabad.
Factual aspects are being asserted in the present case by the petitioner against the encroachers (newly impleaded respondents) and against the petitioner by stating that the petitioner himself is interested in the plot in question.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents states that all such disputed facts are beyond the scope of present petition and the grievance of the petitioner can be suitablely redressed by the respondent no. 2-District Magistrate/Collector, Allahabad. For this purpose, the petitioner may file a fresh representation before the said respondent.
In view of the aforesaid, without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, this petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent no. 2-District Magistrate/Collector, Allahabad along with certified copy of this order as well as relevant documents including copy of the present petition and copy of the impleadment application for the purpose of considering the entire factual aspects of the matter, which shall be considered by the District Magistrate.
In case the District Magistrate finds any substance in the claim of the petitioner, he shall issue necessary direction to the authority concerned, if so required, to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months.
In case the District Magistrate finds that any proceedings are pending before any authority, he shall also direct for time bound disposal of the same, so that aggrieved party may avail the remedy as may be available to him in law.
It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the claim of the petitioner, which shall be looked into by the said respondent while deciding the claim of the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs."
In response to the order dated 23.07.2019, Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed the instruction dated 24.08.2019 sent by District Magistrate, Prayagraj. While submitting the instruction, he informed to the Court that on one hand, the applicant had filed the aforementioned PIL, which was disposed of asking the opposite party to proceed and finalize the proceeding as per Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006, which has been ensured by the Authority vide order dated 11.05.2018 and on the other hand, against the proceeding drawn under Section 33/39 of L.R. Act, wherein, order has been passed on 16.05.2015, the applicant himself has filed a restoration application, which is pending consideration.
Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav, Advocate further apprised to the Court that entire claim has been set up by the private respondents on the basis of lease/patta so accorded by the Competent Authority, which was subjected to challenge under Section 198(4) of UPZA&LR Act and admittedly, the said proceeding has been drawn and finalized against the incumbent, who has encroached upon the public utility land under the Public Interest Litigation and against the proceeding under Section 33/39 of L.R. Act, the applicant has filed restoration application.
Once the applicant himself is a party while filing the restoration application against the order passed under Section 33/39 of L.R. Act, in such a situation, the applicant has no locus to file the public interest litigation.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, the Court is not proceeding to adjudicate the issue but at the same time, it is observed that the applicant has not approached to the writ court with clean hand. However as the writ court order has been complied with by the opposite party and substantial compliance has been ensured and as such, no interference is required in the matter.
In view of the above, nothing further survives in the contempt application and the same stands disposed of. Notices, if any, stand discharged.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 A. Pandey