Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5464 of 2019 Applicant :- Krishnaraj Mishra And Another Opposite Party :- Kripa Shankar Pandey, Incharge Deputy Director Of Consolidation Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of the order dated 28.09.2018 passed in Writ-B No.5164 of 2018 (Krishnaraj Mishra & Anr. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors.), which for ready reference is quoted as under:-
"Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Prashant Pandey on behalf of respondent No. 3 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Tripathi holding brief of Sri Prashant Pandey learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and 3.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 9.8.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 61 ( Laxmi Shankar Vs. Ishwardei and others).
The record reflects that against the order of Consolidation Officer an appeal was filed by petitioners, which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 19.4.2017 whereby the single chak was allotted to the petitioners almost over their original holding and near their Abadi. Against that order respondent No. 2 filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 (1) of UP Consolidation and Holdings Act 1953, which was allowed vide order dated 9.8.2018 and the chak of the petitioners who are holding chak No. 78 was disturbed. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, is impugned in the writ petition.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order has been passed whereby the chak of the petitioners has been disturbed without considering his case and hardship, even the finding so recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation has not been set aside.
It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners never given any consent before the Deputy Director of Consolidation only the consent was given by the respondent No. 3.
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 supported the finding as recorded in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
I have considered the rival submission of the parties and perused the record.
From the perusal of order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it is apparent that the case of the petitioners has not been considered and the same has been passed on the basis of the consent of the respondent No. 3, even the petitioners were allotted chak which is not over their original holding, in fact, the petitioner were deprived of his original holding without considering their case.
The impugned order dated 9.8.2018 passed in Revision No. 61 (Laxmi Shankar Vs. Ishwardei and others) is hereby quashed.
The writ petition stands allowed and the matter is remitted to the Deputy Director of consolidation and is directed to restore the revision to its original number and to decide the same in accordance with law, after affording opportunity hearing to the parties concerned.
Since the matter is an old one and pertains to the allotment of chak, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi is directed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of the production of certified copy of this order.
No order as to costs."
It is reflected from the record that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite parties but the opposite parties have wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, have committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
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 party to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court and finalise the proceeding in question within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and if necessary day to day hearing may be ensured in the matter.
The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite parties and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within one week from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self- addressed stamped envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite parties within one week, thereafter and keep a record thereof. The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ Court and intimate the applicant 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 :- 27.8.2019 SP/