SOHAN LAL Vs. LALARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under sections 2 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating proceedings against the respondents for having committed contempt of the orders passed by this Court on various dates. The petition was heard alongwith record of writ petition no. 14090 of 1986,

(2.) IT appears that one Khem Karan was Bhumidhar of certain agricultural land situate in village Bara Khurd, pargana Hasangarh Tehsil Iglas, district Aligarh, Khem Karan died heirless and several persons filed objections before the Consolidation Officer claiming the property of Khem Karan deceased. The petitioners also filed objections on the ground that prior to his death Khem Karan had executed a will on 2-1-1981 by which, he had bequeathed his entire property to the petitioners. IT may be mentioned here that the will is unregistered. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objections filed the petitioners and also other three set of claimants. IT was held that Khem Karan died leaving no heirs and as such, the property has been vested in Gaon Sabha, The petitioners also filed appeal which was dismissed by the consolidation authority. Thereafter, the petitioners filed revision under section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings, Act, but the same was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 5-7-1986. The concurrent finding is that the petitioners have failed to establish the will and that Khem Karan died heirless. Thereafter, the petitioners filed writ petition no. 14090 of i986 In this court challenging the judgments of the consolidation authorities. In the writ petition, initially followiag interion order was passed on 3-9-1986 . "Issue notice. Till 18-9-86, the parties shall maintain status-quo". subsequently on 5-8-1988, the following interim order was passed : "Issue notice. If the petitioners have not been dispossessed as yet, after 2-12-86, they shall not be evicted until further orders of this Court."

(3.) THE life of the first order dated 3-9-86 which directed the parties to maintain status quo only upto 18-9-86. It is not the case of the petitioners that the said order was extended beyond 18-9-86. THE 2nd order dated 5-8-1988 was a conditional order- It provided that if the petitioners have not been dispossessed already, they shall not be evicted until further orders of this court. I have carefully perused the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities. THEre is no finding of any authority that the petitioners are in possession over the property in dispute. In fact, all the three consolidation authorities have held that the petitioners have failed to establish the will. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners were in possession over the property in dispute.