KRISHN GOPAL ADVOCATEversusSRIMATI ASHU RANI, VICE CHANCLER, DR BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY AND 2 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6906 of 2026

Krishn Gopal Advocate
                                                                    .....Applicant(s)
                                        Versus

Srimati Ashu Rani, Vice Chancler, Dr Bhimrao
Ambedkar University And 2 Others                                        .....Opposite
                                                                              Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                                     :     In Person
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                                :

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

1. The present contempt application has been preferred alleging willful
defiance of the order dated 03.09.2026 passed in Writ-B No. 2190 of
2026, order whereof is quoted herein under:-

"1. As in all the three writ petitions, the parties are same and the orders under
challenge are same, therefore, they are being heard together for passing appropriate
orders by treating the Writ-B No.2190 of 2026 as the lead case.
2. Heard Sri C. B. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 10, Sri Rajendra Kumar, holding brief of Sri A. C.
Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Gaon Sabha and Sri Rakesh Chandra
Pathak, holding brief of Sri Satyendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
3. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of respondent no.10, dated
20.02.2026, passed in revision arising out of proceeding under Section 116 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the preliminary
decree lots were prepared and approved by the order dated 30.05.2006 passed in the
suit for division of holdings. On a recall application moved by one Bhagwan Devi wife
of Prahlad Singh, one of the co-tenure holders, the order dated 30.05.2006 was
recalled by the order of the Deputy District Magistrate, dated 22.06.2006.
Subsequently, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution by the order dated
06.07.2006. On the application moved by Shyam Sundar, the respondent no.3, the
final decree was prepared on 19.10.2007 on the basis of order dated 30.05.2006. It is
further submitted that on the basis of share allotted by the kurra phat, as approved by
the order dated 30.05.2006, Shyam Sundar transferred his share to Virma Devi.
                                                                 CAPL No. 6906 of 2026
                                    2

Virma Devi, who purchased the share of Shyam Sundar with specific boundaries,
moved a recall application for recalling the final decree. The Deputy District
Magistrate though rejected the application of Virma Devi, the respondent no.2,
however, set aside the final decree on the ground that it was prepared during
dismissal of suit for non prosecution and the order dated 30.05.2006 confirming the
lots had already been set aside. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy District
Magistrate, dated 06.02.2021, the petitioner filed three revisions before the
Commissioner of the Division, challenging the orders dated 22.06.2006, 06.07.2006
and 06.02.2021. All the three revisions were allowed by the order of the Additional
Commissioner dated 01.08.2023. The revision filed by the respondent no.2, the
predecessor of Shyam Sundar, the original co-tenure holder of the land in dispute, has
been allowed by the respondent no.10 vide order dated 20.02.2026, restoring the
order dated 06.02.2021.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the basis of order dated
06.02.2021 is the order dated 22.06.2006, which was passed on the application moved
by the Bhagwan Devi, who was not the party to the suit. As the said order has been
challenged by the petitioner in revision before the Commissioner, which has been set
aside, the illegality referred to in the order dated 06.02.2021 ceases to exist. As the
parties to the suit had already acted on the basis of kurras phat as approved by the
order dated 30.05.2006, the recall of final decree on the basis of subsequent
purchaser is uncalled for and the order dated 20.02.2026 is liable to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, who had earlier granted time
to bring on record the sale deed executed in favour of respondent no.2, could not
satisfy the court that the sale deed executed in favour of respondent no.2 was not with
specific boundaries according to lots prepared as approved by the order dated
30.5.2006.
7. Matter requires consideration.
8. Issue notice to the respondent nos.3 to 8. Steps be taken within a week by registered
speed post.
9. All the respondents may file counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit
may also be filed within two weeks thereafter.
10. List thereafter.
11. Till the next date of listing, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo
regarding the nature and possession of the land in dispute and shall not create any
third party right during pendency of the present petition."

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the opposite
                                                                             CAPL No. 6906 of 2026
                                            3


parties are not the parties to the subject writ petition. As the parties in the
said writ petition, insofar as the writ petitioner is concerned, i.e. the father
of the applicant being Hari Shankar, State of U.P., Vrinda Devi, Shyam
Sundar, Mukesh Kumar, Dinesh Kumar, Brijesh Kumar, Bhagwan Devi,
Amar Singh, Gram Sabha Mauja Bagharra, Post Naujheel, Tehsil Mant.
He submits that now an order has been passed on 11.09.2026 forestalling
the admission proceedings, copy whereof is quoted herein under:-

                                                    "पत्रांक: सम्ब./1888/2026 दिनांक: 11/09/2026
सेवा में,

प्रवेश समन्वयक,
समर्थ-2026-27
डॉ० भीमराव आंबेडकर विश्वविद्यालय, आगरा।

विषय:- श्री लोकमणि शर्मा महाविद्यालय, बाघर्रा, नौहझील, मथुरा को सत्र 2026-27 की प्रवेश प्रक्रिया हेतु
समर्थ पोर्टल पर लॉगिन खोले जाने के सम्बन्ध में।
महोदय,
        मा० कुलपति जी के आदेश दिनांक 11.09.2026 के अनुपालन में तथा प्रकरण में गठित जाँच समिति
द्वारा प्रस्तुत जाँच आख्या एवं माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद के नवीनतम आदेश दिनांक 03.09.2026
के क्रम में श्री लोकमणि शर्मा महाविद्यालय, बाघर्रा, नौहझील, मथुरा (कालेज कोड-497) को सत्र 2026-27
की प्रवेश प्रक्रिया में सम्मिलित किये जाने का निर्णय लिया गया है।
       अतः उक्त के क्रम में श्री लोकमणि शर्मा महाविद्यालय का समर्थ पोर्टल पर प्रवेश हेतु लॉगिन खोले जाने
तथा सत्र 2026-27 की नियमानुसार प्रवेश प्रक्रिया पूर्ण कराने हेतु आवश्यक कार्यवाही सुनिश्चित करने का
कष्ट करें।
                                                                                                भवदीय,
                                                                                                [Sd/-]
                                                                                              11/9/26
                                                                                        सहा० कुलसचिव
                                                                                            (सम्बद्धन)".

3. As per the applicant, the issue involved in the subject writ petition was
pertaining to land. However, in the garb and guise of the same, now
admission proceedings have been forestalled, thus, there is no correlation
between them and hence the opposite party has committed willful
defiance of the order of the writ Court.

4. In the opinion of the Court, first of all the opposite parties are not the
                                                                                            CAPL No. 6906 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    parties to the lis. However, might be in view of the judgement in the case
                                    of Israr Ahmad Khan Vs Amarnath and others, 2026 INSC 2209, a non-
                                    party becomes also liable for contempt once the order of the Court is put
                                    to his knowledge, but this Court in contempt jurisdiction is not required to
                                    delve into the merits of the matter while recording a conclusive finding
                                    that the order of the Court is nowhere connected with the order passed by
                                    the opposite parties.

                                    5. In view of the above, the contempt application is consigned to record
                                    leaving it open to the applicant to take legal remedy as permissible and
                                    advisable under law.



                                                                                           (Vikas Budhwar,J.)
                                    October 1, 2026
                                    N.S.Rathour




Digitally signed by :-
NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad