Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite party for wilful disobedience of the judgement and order dated 17.12.2020 passed in Writ C No.23287 of 2020. The operative portion of the order is reproduced hereinbelow :-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Sri R.D. Mishra, holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and perused the material available on record.
By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent nos.2 and 3 to remove illegal encroachment over the pond no.40 made by respondent nos.5 to 11 situated in village Badgaon, Pargana Mah, Tehsil Handia, District Allahabad within a stipulated period of time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a member of Gaon Sabha. The petitioner alongwith other villagers have made complaint dated 1912.2017 and 6.2.2018 before the respondent nos.2 and 3 for removal of illegal encroachment on the recorded pond in question, which are pending consideration. He has further submitted that complaints of the petitioner may be directed to decide expeditiously in accordance with law.
Learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for Gaon Sabha state that the petitioner have an alternative statutory remedy under Section 67 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 to file a representation for redressal of his grievance.
Since a alternative statutory remedy is available under Section 67 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner is permitted to file a comprehensive representation before the authority concerned, if not already filed, who shall, upon verification of facts, initiate a proceeding under Section 67 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, if the facts and circumstances of the case so justify. In the event, such proceeding is initiated, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of two months from the date of representation before it.
It is, however, clarify that all facts shall be subject to due verification and any proceeding that may be adopted will be with due notice to all the affected parties.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is finally disposed off."
It is argued by counsel for the applicant that though the representation was made as per provisions contained under sub Section 1 of Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 but till date no decision has been taken on the same.
It appears from perusal of the record that pursuant to the order passed by this Court comprehensive representation has been submitted by the applicant before the S.D.M., Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj. It transpires that the concerned competent authority is Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj and as such fresh representation has to be made by the applicant before the Tehsildar, concerned.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, present contempt application is disposed of finally directing the Tehsildar, Tehsil-Handia, District Prayagraj to decide the dispute as raised by the applicant expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Pramod Tripathi