Allahabad High Court

NASIRULLAHversusHIMANSHU VERMA

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: VIKAS BUDHWAR

Holding

The Court held that the contempt petition is consigned to the record, directing the applicant to seek expeditious disposal of the pending revenue proceedings before the competent authority.

Summary

The applicant, Nasirullah, filed a contempt petition alleging that the opposite party failed to comply with a High Court order dated 30 July 2024, which dismissed a revision against an interlocutory order in proceedings under Section 128 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The original order directed that the petitioners could continue the revenue proceedings before the Additional District Magistrate (L&R) Gorakhpur and that the court would not interfere under Article 226. A correction application was later allowed, amending the description of the land’s Tappa and the magistrate’s designation. The Court observed that once proceedings under Section 128 are instituted, they must be decided strictly according to the statute without undue delay. Consequently, the contempt application was consigned to the record, permitting the applicant to approach the competent authority for speedy disposal, and the petition remains open for future filing if the matter is not resolved.

Issues considered

Whether the opposite party’s alleged non‑compliance with the High Court order amounts to contempt of court.
Whether the Court can intervene in the pending revenue proceedings under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 128, 210

Subjects

civil contempt
non‑compliance of court order
U.P. Revenue Code
Section 128
Section 210
Article 226
writ petition
correction application

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6115 of 2026

Nasirullah
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Himanshu Verma
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sarvar Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

Court No. - 53
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. The present contempt petition has been preferred alleging non-compliance
of the order dated 30.07.2024 passed in Writ B No.2911 of 2024, the order
whereof is quoted hereinunder:

"Heard Shri Mohan Yadav under the authority of Shri Ashwani Kumar,
learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondent and Shri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 5, the Land Management Committee.
Considering the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, the
service of notice upon private respondents is being dispensed with.
The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 24.5.2024 passed
by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj in Case No.
REV/872/2024/Gorakhpur (Nasirullah and others versus Addl. District
Magistrate (F&R) and others) under Section 210 of the U.P.Revenue
Code, 2006 whereby and whereunder the revision has been dismissed and
the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate
(F&R), Gorakhpur in proceedings under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 has been upheld.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were
granted plantation lease in respect of the land bearing Gata No. 814M,
area 0.10 discimal situate in village Basantpur Tola, Bhaiyapurwa Tappa
Marivaisi, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Compierganj, District Gorakhpur by
the competent Authority vide order dated 26.11.1987. Proceedings under
Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have been initiated after a
lapse of 30 years. The petitioners have taken objections before the Addl.
District Magistrate (F&R), Gorakhpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Board of Revenue
has proceeded to reject the revision of the petitioners only on the ground
CAPL No. 6115 of 2026
2

that the revision preferred by the petitioners were against an
interlocutory order and the proceedings are pending before the Addl.
District Magistrate (F&R), Gorakhpur. Even though, the petitioners had
raised objections as regards the maintainability of the proceedings before
the Addl. District Magistrate (F&R), Gorakhpur.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the
record.
Admittedly, the proceedings under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 against the petitioners are pending consideration before the Addl.
District Magistrate (F&R), Gorakhpur and under the impugned order
dated 14.12.2023, the case has been fixed for evidence and report from
the Tehsildar, Campierganj, District Gorakhpur has been called for.
Against the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision, which has
been rightly rejected by the order dated 24.5.2024, is not maintainable
having been filed against the interlocutory proceedings.
In the opinion of the Court, the order of the Board of Revenue does not
require any interference by this Court under Articles 226 of the
Constitution of India and the petitioner may pursue the proceedings
initiated against him under Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
before the Addl. District Magistrate (F&R), Gorakhpur concerned.
However, it is observed that the objections to the maintainability of the
proceedings may be considered by the Addl. District Magistrate (F&R),
Gorakhpur before passing final orders in the proceedings under Section
128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands
disposed of."

2. The said order came to be corrected on 04.10.2024 which is quoted as
under:

"In Re.: Civil Misc. Correction Application No. 2 of 2024
This is an application for correction in the order dated 30.07.2024
whereby some corrections have been sought by learned counsel for the
applicant/petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and perused the order
dated 30.07.2024.
The correction application is allowed and the order dated 30.07.2024
stands corrected as under:-
In the 4th line of 4th paragraph of the order dated 30.07.2024, the Tappa
mentioned as Marivaisi is replaced by Tappa 'Bharivaisi'. Further, in the
entire order dated 30.07.2024, the designation of the Respondent No. 3
mentioned as Addl. District Magistrate (F&R) Gorakhpur, District
Gorakhpur, is replaced by 'Addl. District Magistrate (L&R) Gorakhpur,
CAPL No. 6115 of 2026
3

District Gorakhpur'.
This order shall be treated as part of the order dated 30.07.2024."

3. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, proceedings under
Section 128 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been instituted. However,
the same has not been decided.

4. In the opinion of the Court, once proceedings under Section 128 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been instituted and the same stands registered
then the same is to be decided strictly as per the mandate of the statute.

5. Accordingly, the contempt application is consigned to record leaving it
open to the applicant to press the same before the concerned competent
authority who shall decide the same with most expedition without granting
unnecessary adjournments and, in case, the same is not decided within the
given time and there is no legal impediment, it shall be open for the
applicant to again approach before this Court.

September 8, 2026
Ashu
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…