Heard.
The facts of the case have been noted by this Court in its order dated 05.11.2020, which, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced below:-
"(C.M. Application No.60214 of 2020) This is an application for impleadment of Sri Manish Nahar, Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow/Competent Authority, Urban and Ceiling, Lucknow, as respondent no.5.
Heard.
The reasons indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the application are sufficient. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
Let Sri Manish Nahar, Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow/Competent Authority, Urban and Ceiling, Lucknow, be impleaded as respondent no.5 within three days.
Order on memo of the petition In pursuance to the order dated 07.02.2020, Sri Abhishek Prakash, District Magistrate, Lucknow and Sri Manish Nahar, Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow/Competent Authority, Urban and Ceiling, Lucknow, are present in Court.
Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the order of the writ Court for which present contempt petition has been filed is dated 23.10.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.10802 (MB) of 2008. By the said order, the writ petition was allowed in terms of the interim order dated 02.12.2018 and necessary corrections were directed to be made in the revenue records. Learned counsel for the applicants further contends that an SLP was filed against the aforesaid judgment which was dismissed inlimine on 10.02.2019 which fact is not disputed by Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General. He contends that though the entry has been made in Khatauni, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the affidavit of compliance filed by respondent no.3 dated 30.07.2020 yet a perusal of Khatauni would indicate that the same has been made subject to Review Application No.8949 of 2020 which has been filed by the State. However, Sri Dinesh Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the applicants, is aggrieved by the other condition which has been imposed in the said Khatauni whereby it has been indicated that till such time the High Court decides the matter finally, the said land can neither be alienated nor sold. The said entry has been made on 23.06.2020.
Sri Misra contends that apart from gross delay which has been made in carrying out the orders passed by the writ Court dated 23.10.2017 inasmuch entry has only been made on 23.06.2020 yet even if a delayed review petitioner has been filed by the respondent-State that would not give them a license to indicate the condition which has been imposed i.e. of the applicants being restrained from alienating or selling of the said land.
Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, however submits that despite dismissal of the SLP on 10.02.2019, the review petition was filed in December 2019 as numbered above and the State is of sanguine belief that certain orders would be passed and therefore in order to protect the interest of the State the said condition has been imposed. However, he fairly submits that in case within a period of three weeks from today the respondents-State is unable to get some orders in the review petition whereby the final judgment dated 23.10.2017 is modified then the said condition would be done away with.
As such, list this case on 14.12.2020. Keeping in view the statement given by Sri Singh, it is indicated that in case no order is passed in the review petition by which judgment dated 23.10.2017 is modified and if the condition still subsists in the Khatauni and is not done away with then both the officers present today shall remain present on the next date of listing."
In pursuance thereof, respondent/contemnor has filed an application for discharge of contempt notice duly supported with an affidavit per which copy of the modified khatauni has been filed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit. By the said khatauni the condition which was existing in the earlier khatauni of the petitioner having been restrained from alienating the land has been done away with. However, it has been indicated that as the review petition no.8949 of 2020 is pending before this Court as such the khatauni would be subject to final decision in the said review petition. Thus, it is apparent that the order passed by the writ Court has been complied with.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the said condition has been incorporated in the khatauni and in case the contempt petition is disposed of then the respondent/contemnor would not get listed the said review petition and the said condition would not be removed from the khatauni.
The said argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is patently fallacious as it cannot be said that the respondents despite having issued khatauni in the name of the petitioner still run in contempt of the order passed by the writ Court more particularly when the land in dispute is in the possession of the petitioner as admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner.
In this view of the matter, the contempt petition is dismissed. Notices are discharged.
After dismissal of the contempt petition, Sri Sanjay Sareen, learned Standing Counsel fairly submits that in case the review petition is dismissed then the condition of pendency of the review petition, as has been indicated in the khatauni, would be deleted within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order of dismissal of the review petition.
The said statement of learned Standing Counsel is recorded.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021 A. Katiyar