Court No. - 5
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4815 of 2012 Applicant :- Krishna @ Kishna Opposite Party :- Rajeev Kumar Adhishashi Abhiyanta And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.,Deepak Kumar Jaiswal,Saran Kumar
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Satish Kumar Pandey holding brief of Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rohit Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1.
This contempt application is highly misconceived. It has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order of the writ court dated 20.12.1994 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.40801 of 1994 (Madan Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mathura and others) whereby the operation of the order dated 01.11.1994 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mathura dated 01.11.1994, was stayed.
The land in question is a public pathway from a very long time. It is undisputedly a Gram Sabha land. The disputed plot No.922 is recorded in revenue record as Gaon Sabha land/ public way. The matter in this regard was decided in O.S. No.984 of 1994 (Madan vs. Bhagwat) which was decreed by a judgment dated 22.10.1997. The judgment dated 22.10.1997 was set aside in Civil Appeal No.139 of 1997 (Bhagwat and others vs. Madan and others) passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Mathura. Second Appeal No.26 of 2010 ({Madan (since deceased) and others vs. Bhagwat and others), was dismissed by this court by order dated 12.01.2010 holding that the appellate court after taking note of aforesaid facts, appreciating oral and documentary evidences has found that there existed public passage which starts from plot No.903 and ended on plot No.924 through plot No.922. This Court in the aforesaid Second Appeal No.26 of 2010 has further observed that the law is settled that public passage, chak-roads are maintained by the Gaon Sabha and no one can encroach public passage/ rasta etc. Under the circumstances, if the pre-existing public road has been maintained or is being maintained, no contempt of the order of the writ court dated 20.12.1994 passed in Writ Petition No.40801 of 1994, can be said to have been committed. Thus, the facts of the present case do not disclose that the opposite parties have wilfully disobeyed the order of the writ court dated 20.12.1994.
In view of the aforesaid, the contempt application is dismissed. Order Date :- 17.12.2019 NLY