Allahabad High Court

JILEDARversusKUNAL GAURAV, UP-ZILADHIKARI

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

Holding

The contempt application was dismissed as no contempt could be established while an appeal under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending.

Summary

The petitioner, Jiledar, claimed ownership of two plots in Jaunpur and sought possession after a favorable order under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was issued on 16‑02‑2023. Although stones were affixed on the land, possession had not been delivered, prompting a writ petition for delivery of possession. The respondents argued that private respondents 5‑7 were not before the court and that the Section 24 proceedings might still be under appeal. The court found that an appeal under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code had indeed been filed and was pending, and therefore no contempt of court could be established. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed, and the Additional Commissioner‑Ist, Varanasi Division was directed to decide the pending appeal within three months. The writ petition was disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the revenue officer.

Issues considered

Whether a contempt application can be sustained when an appeal under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending.
Whether the revenue officer is obliged to deliver possession of the land before the appeal under Section 24 is finally decided.

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 24, 24(2), 24(4)

Subjects

land demarcation
possession
contempt of court
pending appeal
Uttar Pradesh revenue law

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 9234 of 2023

Jiledar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

Kunal Gaurav, Up-Ziladhikari
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ali Hasan, Istiyaq Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

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

1. The writ Court on 25.04.2023 while disposing of Writ-C No. 13772 of
2023 passed the following order:

"Heard Sri Ali Husan learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned Standing Counsel who appears for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3
and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi who appears for respondent No. 4.

In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed today, notices
are not being issued to respondents No. 5 to 7.

The case of the writ petitioner is that he along with his brother Suresh,
Dinesh Kumar, Kamlesh, Jiledar and Basanti are recorded owners of plot
No. 156 area 0.0240 hectares and plot No. 163 area 0.0080 hectares
situate in Village Rampur Khas Pargana and Tehsil Mariyahun, District
Jaunpur. In support of the said contention the Khatauni of the fasli year
1428/1433 have been annexed as Annexure 1. According to the writ
petitioner he preferred proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue
code, 2006 on 14.10.2022 for demarcation of the boundaries of plot No.
156 area 0.0240 hectares and plot No. 163 area 0.0080 hectares. The
third respondent, Up-Zila Adhikari Mariyahun, District Jaunpur
consequent to obtaining of the report from the Tehsildar concerned
thereafter proceeded to pass an order dated 16.02.2023 which according
to the writ petitioner is in his favour. It is further the submission of the
writ petitioner that the stones were also affixed on the plot in question by
the Revenue Inspector. In support of the said contention the reference has
CAPL No. 9234 of 2023
2

been made at page 33 of the paper book which happens to be the order of
the third respondent dated 16.02.2023 under Section 24 of the U.P.
Revenue Code as well as the spot memo at page 36 of the paper book.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has further invited the attention of
the Court towards page 40 so as to contend that a report of affixation of
the stones is already there on record dated 24.03.2023. The grievance of
the writ petitioner is that the proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P.
Revenue Code has been decided in favour of the writ petitioner stones
have been also affixed but possession has not been delivered. The learned
counsel for the writ petitioner on the strength of the statutory provisions
contained under sub-clause (b) read with sub-section (2) of Section 24 of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has submitted that it is always open for the
Sub-Divisional Officer while determining the boundaries to even restore
the possession to the land owner who is entitled for the said benefit.

Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the third respondent to
deliver the possession of the plots in question and in alternative to decide
the application of the writ petitioner dated 05.04.2023 which has been
appended as Annexure 7 at page 41/43 reference whereof has been made
in para 6 of the writ petition.

Learned Standing Counsel as well as the counsel appearing for the Gaon
Sabha, on the other hand, submits that since the private respondents No.
5 to 7 are not before the Court and further it is not ascertainable as to
whether the proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code
emanating from the order dated 16.02.2023 of the third respondent has
been carried in appeal or not thus according to him the best course
available would be to direct the third respondent to decide the application
of the writ petitioner which is stated to be filed and pending since
05.04.2023. It is further the stand of the learned counsel for the
respondent that no fruitful purpose will be served in detaining the writ
petitioner, however according to them they do not propose to file any
counter affidavit.

Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken
by them, the writ petition is being disposed of granting liberty to the writ
petitioner to prefer a fresh application before the third respondent, Up-
CAPL No. 9234 of 2023
3

Zila Adhikari Mariyahun, Distict Jaunpur annexing the self-attested copy
of the writ petition pressing his claim and cause strictly after complying
with the provisions contained under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and on
the said application being preferred by the writ petitioner the third
respondent shall proceed to decide the same strictly in accordance with
law. It is further provided that the third respondent before proceeding to
decide the claim of the writ petitioner shall also advert to the crucial fact
as to whether the proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code
has attained finality or not or it has been carried to before the appellate
forum by means of filing of the appeal by the private respondent. The
entire exercise should be done strictly in accordance with law after
hearing the parties subject to legal impediment, if any, within a period of
two months.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of."

2. In the compliance affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party, in para 9,
it has been stated that against the order passed by the S.D.M. on 16.02.2023
and thereafter, in restoration application on 17.07.2023, the respondent no. 5
in the said case had preferred an appeal under Section 24(4) of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, which is pending consideration.

3. As the appeal against the said order is pending consideration, no case for
contempt is made out.

4. The present contempt application stands dismissed directing the
Additional Commissioner-Ist, Varanasi Division, Varanasi to decide the
appeal pending under Section 24(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within
three months, if it has not been decided till date.

5. Contempt notice stands discharged.

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
May 14, 2026
A. V. Singh

Digitally signed by :-
AJAY VIKRAM SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…