Gopal v. State of U.P. and others), whereby parties are directed to maintain status qu

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Applicant came with the case that the Tehsildar has passed the order dated 13.6.2025 in defiance of the interim order dated 24.3.2025, passed by this court in Writ C No. 8419 of 2025 (Gopal Vs. State of U.P. and others), whereby parties are directed to maintain status quo.

3. The record evinces that Plot No. 264 belongs to Gram Panchayat, and recorded as Naveen Parti (new fallow land) in land revenue reord. Proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in brevity "the Code 2006") have been initiated against the present applicant, indicating his occupation over a partial area of plot No.264 in contravention of the provisions of the Code 2006. Learned Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, First Class, passed the order dated 17.10.2024 for dispossession of the present applicant from wrongful occupation of the land in question and also to pay compensation for wrongful occupation. Having been aggrieved, the present applicant has filed an appeal under Section 67(5) of the Code, 2006. Learned Additional Collector (Administration), Aligarh, dismissed the aforesaid appeal; however, issued a direction to the Tehsildar that the amount of compensation should be modified in view of the report dated 16.5.2023 submitted by the Lekhpal. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 25.2.2025 passed by the appellate court and the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the Tehsildar, the present applicant has preferred a Writ Petition being Writ C no. 8419 of 2025 (Gopal v. State of U.P. and others). While entertaining the aforesaid writ petition, this court has passed the following interim order dated 24.3.2025 : "1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: 2 CAPL No. 5395 of 2025 "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated: 25.02.2025 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the respondent no.2- The Additional Collector (Administration), Aligarh, in Appeal No.14211/2024 (computerized no. D202418020014211), as well as order dated 17.10.2024 (Annexure No.7) passed by the respondent no.3-The Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, 1st class, Iglas, Aligarh, in case no.2205/ 2023 (computerized no.T202318020302205)."

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an order of eviction has been passed on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any objections therefore, unauthorized possession has been admitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has filed objections and the recital in order is incorrect. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in memo of appeal he has stated this fact in para no. 7 of the memo of appeal but the appeal has been dismissed without recording any finding in this regard.

4. Matter requires consideration.

5. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are represented by learned Standing Counsel. Sri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel appeared for the respondent no. 4/Gaon Sabha.

6. Respondents may file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

7. List thereafter.

8. Till the next date of listing, the parties are directed to maintain status quo."

4. Subsequently, the Tehsildar has passed the order dated 13.6.2025 in compliance of the appellate court order dated 20.02.2025 and, accordingly, modified the previous order dated 17.10.2024 with respect to the area of Plot No. 264 from 0.095 hectare to 0.0095 hectare, which is allegedly under wrongful occupation of the present applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Tehsildar has passed the order dated 17.10.2024 in willful disobedience of the interim order dated 24.03.2025 passed by this Hon'ble court. While passing the order dated 13.6.2025, the Tehsildar, has directed the realization of the compensation amount and dispossession of the present applicant from the land in question. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the copy of the counter affidavit filed on 8.7.2025 by the Naib Tehsildar on behalf of the Additional Collector and the Tehsildar (respondent nos. 2 & 3 respectively in the writ petition). As per his submission, the order dated 13.6.2025 itself was filed by the Tehsildar as Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit and an averment in this regard has been made in paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit. He has further submitted that all State respondents were 3 CAPL No. 5395 of 2025 adequately represented in the writ petition.

6. Having considered the entire record produced before this court and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, it prima facie reveals that the order dated 24.3.2025 was not brought to the knowledge of the Tehsildar at the time of passing the order dated 13.6.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to demonstrate how and when the interim order dated 24.3.2025 was brought to the knowledge of the Tehsildar. No evidence is on record to show that, at the time of passing the order dated

13.6.2025, the order dated 24.3.2025 passed by this court was well within the knowledge of the Tehsildar or was part of the record, and that despite such knowledge, the order dated 13.6.2025 has been passed. Counter affidavit has been filed subsequently on 8.7.2025. Based on statement made in paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit, it cannot be inferred that the order dated 24.3.2025 passed by the High Court was well within the knowledge of the Tehsildar at the time of passing the order dated 13.6.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant has laid emphasis on the representation dated

22.5.2025 (page no. 64 of the paper book) which was allegedly filed before the Tehsildar. However, there is no specific averment in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt application that the said representation was moved by the petitioner before the Tehsildar. Neither there is an endorsement of receiving on the aforesaid application nor there is any postal receipt on record to demonstrate that the same was sent to the Tehsildar concerned on time. Assuming arguendo that the State authorities were represented through the Standing Counsel; however, merely modifying the previous order dated 17.10.2024 by the subsequent order dated 13.6.2025 in compliance of the appellate order dated 25.2.2025 cannot be considered as an order passed in defiance of the interim order dated 24.3.2025 passed by this Court. Vide interim order dated 24.3.2025, the parties were directed to maintain status quo; however, there is no averment in the present contempt application that the present applicant has been dispossessed from the plot in question in willful dispossession of the interim order for maintaining status quo. The amendment order dated 13.6.2025 cannot be considered as an independent order. The applicant can move an appropriate application to amend the pleadings of the original writ petition in the light of the amendment order dated 13.6.2025. At this juncture, no case is made out for wilful dispossession of the interim order dated 24.3.2025 passed by this Court. There is no blanket order staying the effect and operation of the order 4 CAPL No. 5395 of 2025 passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court. In future, if the applicant is dispossessed or is likely to be dispossessed in violation of the interim order dated 13.6.2025, he will be at liberty to move a contempt application.

7. In this conspectus, as above, at this stage, I do not find any merit in the instant Contempt Application. As such, same is dismissed in limine with no costs. October 8, 2025 (Dinesh Pathak,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Applicant came with the case that the Tehsildar has passed the order dated 13.6.2025 in defiance of the interim order dated 24.3.2025, passed by this court in Writ C No. 8419 of 2025 (Gopal Vs. State of U.P. and others), whereby parties are directed to maintain status quo.

3. The record evinces that Plot No. 264 belongs to Gram Panchayat, and recorded as Naveen Parti (new fallow land) in land revenue reord. Proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in brevity "the Code 2006") have been initiated against the present applicant, indicating his occupation over a partial area of plot No.264 in contravention of the provisions of the Code 2006. Learned Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, First Class, passed the order dated 17.10.2024 for dispossession of the present applicant from wrongful occupation of the land in question and also to pay compensation for wrongful occupation. Having been aggrieved, the present applicant has filed an appeal under Section 67(5) of the Code, 2006. Learned Additional Collector (Administration), Aligarh, dismissed the aforesaid appeal; however, issued a direction to the Tehsildar that the amount of compensation should be modified in view of the report dated 16.5.2023 submitted by the Lekhpal. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 25.2.2025 passed by the appellate court and the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the Tehsildar, the present applicant has preferred a Writ Petition being Writ C no. 8419 of 2025 (Gopal v. State of U.P. and others). While entertaining the aforesaid writ petition, this court has passed the following interim order dated 24.3.2025 : "1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: 2 CAPL No. 5395 of 2025 "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated: 25.02.2025 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the respondent no.2- The Additional Collector (Administration), Aligarh, in Appeal No.14211/2024 (computerized no. D202418020014211), as well as order dated 17.10.2024 (Annexure No.7) passed by the respondent no.3-The Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, 1st class, Iglas, Aligarh, in case no.2205/ 2023 (computerized no.T202318020302205)."

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an order of eviction has been passed on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any objections therefore, unauthorized possession has been admitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has filed objections and the recital in order is incorrect. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in memo of appeal he has stated this fact in para no. 7 of the memo of appeal but the appeal has been dismissed without recording any finding in this regard.

4. Matter requires consideration.

5. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are represented by learned Standing Counsel. Sri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel appeared for the respondent no. 4/Gaon Sabha.

6. Respondents may file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

7. List thereafter.

8. Till the next date of listing, the parties are directed to maintain status quo."

4. Subsequently, the Tehsildar has passed the order dated 13.6.2025 in compliance of the appellate court order dated 20.02.2025 and, accordingly, modified the previous order dated 17.10.2024 with respect to the area of Plot No. 264 from 0.095 hectare to 0.0095 hectare, which is allegedly under wrongful occupation of the present applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Tehsildar has passed the order dated 17.10.2024 in willful disobedience of the interim order dated 24.03.2025 passed by this Hon'ble court. While passing the order dated 13.6.2025, the Tehsildar, has directed the realization of the compensation amount and dispossession of the present applicant from the land in question. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the copy of the counter affidavit filed on 8.7.2025 by the Naib Tehsildar on behalf of the Additional Collector and the Tehsildar (respondent nos. 2 & 3 respectively in the writ petition). As per his submission, the order dated 13.6.2025 itself was filed by the Tehsildar as Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit and an averment in this regard has been made in paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit. He has further submitted that all State respondents were 3 CAPL No. 5395 of 2025 adequately represented in the writ petition.

6. Having considered the entire record produced before this court and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, it prima facie reveals that the order dated 24.3.2025 was not brought to the knowledge of the Tehsildar at the time of passing the order dated 13.6.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to demonstrate how and when the interim order dated 24.3.2025 was brought to the knowledge of the Tehsildar. No evidence is on record to show that, at the time of passing the order dated

13.6.2025, the order dated 24.3.2025 passed by this court was well within the knowledge of the Tehsildar or was part of the record, and that despite such knowledge, the order dated 13.6.2025 has been passed. Counter affidavit has been filed subsequently on 8.7.2025. Based on statement made in paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit, it cannot be inferred that the order dated 24.3.2025 passed by the High Court was well within the knowledge of the Tehsildar at the time of passing the order dated 13.6.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant has laid emphasis on the representation dated

22.5.2025 (page no. 64 of the paper book) which was allegedly filed before the Tehsildar. However, there is no specific averment in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt application that the said representation was moved by the petitioner before the Tehsildar. Neither there is an endorsement of receiving on the aforesaid application nor there is any postal receipt on record to demonstrate that the same was sent to the Tehsildar concerned on time. Assuming arguendo that the State authorities were represented through the Standing Counsel; however, merely modifying the previous order dated 17.10.2024 by the subsequent order dated 13.6.2025 in compliance of the appellate order dated 25.2.2025 cannot be considered as an order passed in defiance of the interim order dated 24.3.2025 passed by this Court. Vide interim order dated 24.3.2025, the parties were directed to maintain status quo; however, there is no averment in the present contempt application that the present applicant has been dispossessed from the plot in question in willful dispossession of the interim order for maintaining status quo. The amendment order dated 13.6.2025 cannot be considered as an independent order. The applicant can move an appropriate application to amend the pleadings of the original writ petition in the light of the amendment order dated 13.6.2025. At this juncture, no case is made out for wilful dispossession of the interim order dated 24.3.2025 passed by this Court. There is no blanket order staying the effect and operation of the order 4 CAPL No. 5395 of 2025 passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court. In future, if the applicant is dispossessed or is likely to be dispossessed in violation of the interim order dated 13.6.2025, he will be at liberty to move a contempt application.

7. In this conspectus, as above, at this stage, I do not find any merit in the instant Contempt Application. As such, same is dismissed in limine with no costs. October 8, 2025 (Dinesh Pathak,J.)