Allahabad High Court

RAMJEET YADAVversusSHAILESH KUMAR, TEHSILDAR / ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, TEHSIL-BUDHANPUR

Decided: 22 April 2026
Bench: ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

Holding

No contempt was found as the High Court’s interim order maintaining status‑quo precludes any contemptuous act, and the contempt application was dismissed.

Summary

The applicant, Ramjeet Yadav, filed a contempt application against Tehsildar Shailesh Kumar alleging that the Tehsildar had violated an order dated 13‑10‑2022 under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The order was appealed under Section 67(5) but the appeal was dismissed, leading the petitioner to file Writ‑C No.10246 of 2025 seeking quashing of the order and mandamus for land demarcation. The High Court, noting that it had already directed the parties to maintain the status‑quo and stay any eviction pending the writ proceedings, held that no contempt could arise from the alleged act. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed and the bailable warrant issued against the applicant was discharged. The judgment reaffirmed that a contempt proceeding cannot proceed where the substantive dispute is already stayed by a higher court.

Issues considered

Whether the Tehsildar’s actions constitute contempt of court after the High Court’s interim order maintaining status‑quo
Whether the contempt application is maintainable in view of the stay on eviction issued by the writ court

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67, 67(5)

Subjects

civil contempt
status quo
writ petition
mandamus
Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code
eviction
land demarcation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4562 of 2025

Ramjeet Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

Shailesh Kumar, Tehsildar / Assistant Collector,
Tehsil-Budhanpur .....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Krishna Mishra, Suresh Chand
Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Tehsildar, Tehsil- Budhanpur, District- Azamgarh
is present in the Court today, who is identified by Sri Manoj Pandey,
learned Standing Counsel.

2. An affidavit of compliance has been filed today, which is taken on
record.

3. It is contended by learned Standing Counsel that the order date
13.10.2022 passed in proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 could not be complied with as against the said order, an
appeal under Section 67(5) was filed by one Lalchand before the Chief
Revenue Officer, Azamgarh which was dismissed on 05.12.2024.
Lalchand preferred Writ-C No.10246 of 2025 before this Court, in which,
the writ Court had passed an interim order on 16.04.2025 directing the
parties to maintain status quo and following order was passed:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking following relief :-

"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the
effect and operation of the order dated 05-12-2024 passed by the
Respondent No 3, in Case No. 2393 of 2024, Computerized Case No.
D202415060002393, Lal Chandra Versus Tehsildar Budhanpur, Under
CAPL No. 4562 of 2025
2

Section 67(5) U.P. Revenue Code., as well as the order dated 13-10-2022,
passed by the respondent No.4, in Case No. 2850 of 2022 Computerized
Case No. T202215060602850 Report Versus Lal Chandra, Under Section
67 of U.P. Revenue Code.

(II)- Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing
the respondents to proceed further only after proper demarcation of the
land in dispute bearing Gata No. 48/0.031 Hectare Situated at Willage-
Kalhora, Pargana-Kaudiya, Tehsil-Budhanpur, District- Azamgarh, and
the proceedings shall be directed to be completed within stipulated time
frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that against an ex
parte order passed by Tehsildar under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006, an appeal was filed by the petitioner wherein various
grounds were taken by the petitioner and objection was taken that the
order has been passed without their being any demarcation of land.
Petitioner prayed before the Appellate Court that before deciding the
appeal, land in dispute be demarcated. Appeal has been dismissed on the
ground that petitioner ought to have file such application before the
Tehsildar which he has not done, therefore, no such demarcation can be
made. No finding on the objections taken by the petitioner has been
recorded by the Appellate Court and has mechanically confirmed the
order impugned.

4. Respondents No.1 to 4 are represented by learned Standing Counsel.

5. Respondent No.5 is represented by Shri R.P. Shukla, Advocate.

6. Respondents are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

7. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

8. List thereafter.

9. Till then, parties are directed to maintain status quo."

4. As the writ Court had entertained the writ petition filed by Lalchand
and had directed the parties to maintain status quo, eviction cannot be
CAPL No. 4562 of 2025
3

carried out.

5. In view of the said fact as the writ Court had stayed the eviction of the
Lalchand from the property in dispute, no case for contempt is made out.

6. Contempt application stands dismissed. Bailable warrant stands
discharged.

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
April 23, 2026
SK Goswami

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…