LAWS(ALL)-1994-3-5

RAM SAJIWAN Vs. NIBU LAL

Decided On March 21, 1994
RAM SAJIWAN Appellant
V/S
NIBU LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS contempt petition filed under section 10/12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is directed against 12 persons arrayed as opposite parties in the petition. Insofar as opposite parties no. 4 to 12 are concerned, there is no whisper muchless any allegation of any charge, omission attributable to them. Whatever allegations of alleged contemptuous conduct have been made in the petition are directed against opposite parties no. 1 to 3, namely, Sub-Divisional Officer, Naraini, Police Station Officer Naraini and Tehsildar Naraini respectively.

(2.) THE applicant claims that he is a bhumidhar of khatauni khata no. 62 of village Madhopur, Tehsil Naraini, District Banda, and certain land of the applicant was declared surplus by the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge, Banda. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant filed a writ petition No. 9658 of 1985 (Ram Sajiwan v. HI Additional District Judge, Banda and others) in which a learned Single Judge of this Court granted an interim order dated 15-7-1985 directing: "Until further orders, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the land in dispute". It is claimed that the said interim order is still in operation and the writ petition is pending adjudication. THE case taken up in this petition is that Sub-Divisional Officer. Naraini, accompanied by Police Station Officer,. Tehsildar and other police force came to the disputed land and threatened to cut away the crops standing thereon but they were dissuaded to do so on the persuation of certain fellow villagers of the applicant's village. This incident is said to have happened on 1st March, 1994. It is further alleged that the Station Officer, Police Station Naraini was heard saying that he wilt obey the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer rather than that of the High Court. On these allegations the applicant claims that the opposite parties are liable to be punished under the contempt of Courts Act.

(3.) THE petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly, rejected. Petition dismissed.