Allahabad High Court
LALMUNI DEVIversusSHAILENDRA SINGH, TEHSILDAR
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
No contempt of court was found as the opposite party had complied with the writ, and the contempt application was dismissed.
Summary
The applicant, Lalmuni Devi, filed a contempt application alleging that the opposite party, Tehsildar Shailendra Singh, had failed to comply with a writ dated 13 March 2024 directing the conclusion of proceedings under Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The opposite party submitted evidence that the proceedings were concluded on 26 October 2024 and that the applicant's name had been entered in the revenue records, including a mutation order and khatauni extract. The court examined whether a case for contempt existed in view of this compliance. Finding that the statutory proceedings were completed and the required entries made, the court held that no contempt had occurred and dismissed the contempt application. A subsequent recall application seeking discharge of a bailable warrant issued on 3 April 2026 was allowed, as the contempt matter had been resolved.
Issues considered
- What is the existence of a contempt of court when the statutory proceedings under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have been completed and the applicant's name recorded in revenue records?
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 35
Subjects
- civil contempt
- contempt of court
- U.P. Revenue Code
- Section 35
- mutation order
- bailable warrant
- recall application
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5782 of 2024
Lalmuni Devi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Shailendra Singh, Tehsildar
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghvendra Tripathi, Rohit Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for opposite party states that the
writ Court on 13.3.2024 had directed the opposite party to conclude the
proceedings under Section 35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, while
disposing of Writ-C No. 8225 of 2024. According to him, the proceedings
in question have been concluded on 26.10.2024 and name of the applicant
has been recorded in revenue records, copy of mutation order as well as
extract of khatauni has been placed before the Court which are taken on
record.
2. As the proceedings under Section 35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have
been concluded and name of applicant has been recorded in revenue
records, no case for contempt is made out. Contempt application stands
dismissed.
In Re: Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 2 of 2026
1. Heard the learned Standing Counsel.
2. This application has been filed on behalf of opposite party for recalling
the order dated 3.4.2026 issuing bailable warrant against the opposite
party.
3. As the order of writ Court has been complied by the opposite party and
contempt application has already been dismissed today, bailable warrant
issued against the opposite party stands discharged.
CAPL No. 5782 of 2024
2
4. Application is allowed, accordingly.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
May 7, 2026
Shekhar
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…