1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Yameen vs B N Singh

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 April, 2019
Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2568 of 2019 Applicant :- Yameen Opposite Party :- B.N. Singh, The District Collector Counsel for Applicant :- Qazi Vakil Ahmad Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
The petitioner is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order dated 13.04.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.13549 of 2018 (Yameen v. State of U.P. & Ors.). For ready reference the order dated 13.04.2018 is quoted as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner is before this Court for a direction to second respondent-District Collector, Gautam Buddh Nagar to decide the application dated 24.05.2012 filed under Section 152 of CPC as numbered Misc. Case No.53 of 2012 in Original Case No.3 of 1987-88 (State of U.P. v. Pragatisheel Samuhik Samiti) under Sections 154 (2)/167 (3) of UPZA & LR Act within stipulated period.
A similar application was filed by one Surajbhan Sharma for correction/modification/rectification of the order dated 7.4.1993. This application was rejected vide order dated 6.9.2011 on the ground that the correction sought is time barred and the Collector has no authority to make any correction in the said order as the aforesaid order has been affirmed by the higher Courts. The aforesaid Surajbhan Sharma challenged the rejection order by filing writ petition no. 58827 of 2011. The said writ petition was finally allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.10.2011. The Court held that there is no impediment on part of the District Judge to decide the aforesaid application and to carryout the correction/modification/rectification in the order dated 7.4.1993 subject to verification of status of the land claimed by the petitioners as to whether it was part of the transaction covered in the order dated 7.4.1993. The order dated 6.9.2011 rejecting the petitioners application was quashed.
In view of the above decision of this Court which is said to have become final by the parties, the controversy involved in this writ petition stands fully covered by the same.
In view of the above, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the consent of the parties at this very stage in the same terms and conditions as contained in the judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 passed in writ petition no. 58827 of 2011 (Surajbhan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others)."
Learned counsel for the applicant submits 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 parties to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
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 :- 29.4.2019 SP/
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
  • Qazi Vakil Ahmad