Anuruddh Kumar v. State of U.P. & Others. In order to appreciate the issue involved, it will

In order to appreciate the issue involved, it will be relevant to take a note of background of the instant contempt petition. The record indicates that certain proceedings were pending before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, (for short, 'the Act of 1953'). The petitioner for the first time came up before the Court by means of the Writ Petition No.31824 (M/S) of 2018 [Anuruddh Kumar v. State of U.P. & Others], whereby a request was made that the proceedings pending under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 may be decided expeditiously and a Coordinate Bench of this Court by means of its order dated 31.10.2018 had passed the order and the relevant portion thereof is being reproduced hereinafter:- "Having regard to the innocuous nature of prayer made by the petitioner, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the court concerned to expedite the proceedings of the objection, under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in Original Misc. Case No. 3960 of 1987, Shiv Ram & others Vs. Balgar and conclude the same within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is further directed that the parties to the case shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, neither any such adjournment shall be granted by the Presiding Officer, except in exceptional circumstances." In view thereof, it would reveal that the proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 were expedited. Be that as it may, once again the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.5576 of 2023 (A-227) [Anuruddh Kumar v. State of U.P. & Others], whereby a Coordinate Bench of this Court by means of its order dated 01.11.2023 had passed the following order, which reads as under:- "Taking note of earlier order of this Court dated 31.10.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 31824 (M/S) of 2018 (Anuruddh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others) as also the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation (SOC) dated 24.03.2021 passed in Case No. 22 /2021 and another order dated 31.08.2022 passed by SOC in Case No. 39/2022, let respondent No. 3/Consolidation Officer, Sadar-II, District Barabanki shall appear in person tomorrow so as to explain as to why the case, in issue, has not been disposed of till date. Put up tomorrow i.e. 02.11.2023 as fresh." In furtherance thereof, the officer was required to explain as to why the issue had not been decided. Accordingly, on 02.11.2023, the Court taking note of the statement given by the learned standing counsel, dismissed the petition as infructuous. However for the ease of the reference, the order dated 02.11.2023 has been reproduced hereinafter:- "1. Case called out.

2. Officer concerned, in terms of order dated 01.11.2023, is present in Court today.

3. Heard.

4. Based upon the instructions received from Officer concerned, Shri Badrish Singh, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents states that the issue has been finally decided vide order dated 01.11.2023.

5. Taking note of the aforesaid, the present petition has now become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.

6. Appearance of the Officer present is dispensed with." Thus, it is the above quoted order dated 02.11.2023 which is said to have been violated by the authority concerned. A specific query was put to Shri Mahendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate as to how the order dated 02.11.2023 has been violated. Shri Dwivedi submits that once it was recorded in the order dated 02.11.2023 that the officer concerned had finally decided the matter on 01.11.2023 and a copy of the order was also provided to the Court. Later, upon an application moved by the respondents in the proceedings before the Consolidation Authorities for recall of the order dated 01.11.2023 the said officer has recalled the order dated 01.11.2023 by means of the order dated 31.05.2025 and thus the officer has committed willful contempt. It is further submitted by Shri Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Consolidation Authorities do not have power to recall/review their order, hence, in the aforesaid circumstances, it was a clear deliberate violation of the order passed by the Court, hence, the officer concerned be punished. Before proceeding further, it will also be relevant to notice an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 30.07.2025 and in pursuance whereof Mr. Rajesh Singh, Consolidation Officer, Sadar-II, Barabanki is present. The order dated 30.07.2025 reads as under:- "1. On 25.07.2025, following order was passed:- "1. Heard.

2. The instant contempt application has been filed by the applicant alleging disobedience of the order dated 02.11.2023 passed in Matters under Article 227 No. 5576 of 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by Radhey Shyam s/o Babu Lal in Original Misc. Case No. 3960 of 1987 (Shiv Ram & Ors. Vs. Balgar) before Consolidation Officer, Barabanki and as the same was not being decided, the petitioner filed a petition Misc. Single No. 31824 of 2018, which was disposed of on 31.10.2018 with direction to Court concerned to expedite the proceedings of the objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in Original Misc. Case No. 3960 of 1987 and conclude the same within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of the order. It is further submitted that the proceeding was going on, at the same time as pandemic Covid-19 was started, the applicant could not prefer the contempt application and he also filed another petition i.e. Matters under Article 227 No. 5576 of 2023.

4. The order dated 31.10.2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 31824 of 2018 is as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 4. In view of the proposed order, the requirement of issuance of notice to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is hereby dispensed with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that an appropriate direction may be issued to the court concerned for expediting the proceedings of the objection said to have been filed under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in Original Misc. Case No. 3960 of 1987, Shiv Ram & others Vs. Balgar. Having regard to the innocuous nature of prayer made by the petitioner, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the court concerned to expedite the proceedings of the objection, under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in Original Misc. Case No. 3960 of 1987, Shiv Ram & others Vs. Balgar and conclude the same within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is further directed that the parties to the case shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, neither any such adjournment shall be granted by the Presiding Officer, except in exceptional circumstances."

5. The orders dated 01.11.2023 and 02.11.2023 passed in Matters under Article 227 No. 5576 of 2023 are as under:- Order dated 01.11.2023: "Taking note of earlier order of this Court dated 31.10.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 31824 (M/S) of 2018 (Anuruddh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others) as also the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation (SOC) dated 24.03.2021 passed in Case No. 22 /2021 and another order dated 31.08.2022 passed by SOC in Case No. 39/2022, let respondent No. 3/Consolidation Officer, Sadar-II, District Barabanki shall appear in person tomorrow so as to explain as to why the case, in issue, has not been disposed of till date. Put up tomorrow i.e. 02.11.2023 as fresh." Order dated 02.11.2023: "1. Case called out.

2. Officer concerned, in terms of order dated 01.11.2023, is present in Court today.

3. Heard.

4. Based upon the instructions received from Officer concerned, Shri Badrish Singh, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents states that the issue has been finally decided vide order dated 01.11.2023.

5. Taking note of the aforesaid, the present petition has now become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.

6. Appearance of the Officer present is dispensed with."

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the aforesaid petition was listed on 02.11.2023, on which dated, on the basis of instructions of Consolidation Officer, it was informed that objection has already been decided on 01.11.2023. He also submits that vide order dated 01.11.2023, objection of Radhey Shyam was rejected. The Consolidation Officer has no right to review or recall the order which is passed in any consolidation proceeding. Radhey Shyam has also filed a restoration application on 04.11.2023, which was allowed by Consolidation Officer on 31.05.2025 in utter violations of law laid down by full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shivraji Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Allahabad & others reported in 1997 ALL. L.J. - 2363, hence, the respondent officer deliberately committed contempt of this Court.

7. List this case on 30.07.2025 at 11:30 A.M.

8. On the next date, the respondent shall appear in person before this Court along with complete record and shall inform that under what circumstances, the order dated 31.05.2025 was passed, which is contrary to law laid down by full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shivraji Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Allahabad & others (supra).

9. Mrs. Jayanti Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall communicate this order to Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Consolidation Officer for necessary compliance, forthwith.

10. Let a copy of this application be provided to Mrs. Jayanti Singh by learned counsel for the applicant, forthwith."

2. Sri Sunil Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays for some more time to ensure compliance of directions of this Court.

3. List this case on 08.08.2025 at 11:30 am in terms of earlier order dated 25.07.2025.". A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether if an order is passed by an authority either good, bad or indifferent in exercise of his judicial/quasi judicial functioning whether an incorrect order passed on merit can subject the officer to contempt proceedings. Shri Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner could not give a straight reply to the aforesaid query, however, he states that since the order passed by the Court has been violated, hence, the contempt has been made out. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State submits that the officer had passed an order on merits keeping in mind the order of expedition passed by the High Court. However, since the said order was passed in absence of the other party and the law is settled that if an order has been passed ex-parte and an application for recall is moved then the Consolidation Authorities do have the powers to recall ex-parte order. It is further urged by Shri Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State that irrespective of the fact that the order could or could not be recalled, but the fact remains that passing of the order was an exercise of his judicial functioning and an officer is protected by the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 as well as Section 49-A of the Act of 1953 and in terms whereof any act done in bonafide exercise of his powers cannot be subjected to contempt proceedings. It is, thus, urged by Shri Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the contempt petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and it must be dismissed and some costs must be imposed so that such attempts may not be repeated. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. Apparently, it is clear that insofar as the order passed by the writ Court dated 01.11.2023 is concerned, it only required the officer to inform what is the status of the proceedings and for the said purpose the matter was listed on 02.11.2023. On the very said date, it was informed to the Court that the matter had already been decided on 01.11.2023. The Court had not directed that the matter had to be decided in any one particular manner. The moment, the final orders were passed then the matter came to an end. Subsequently, if any application for recall was moved at the behest of the private-respondents in the consolidation proceedings that would be the subject matter of separate cause of action and could not be clubbed with the earlier petition wherein it was only required that the proceedings be finally decided. Even otherwise, once the application had been moved by the respondents before the Consolidation Officer and it has also been informed by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had also filed his objections to the recall application, contested the same on merits and did not raise any objection regarding any violation of the order of the writ Court or the contempt Court and only once the final order came to be passed on 31.05.2025 that the instant contempt petition was filed on 18.07.2025. In this view of the matter, apparently, this Court is of the clear view that no contempt is made out. A misadventure has been attempted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in furtherance thereof, the officer had to be called, who otherwise should have been working in his Court and because of being summoned, he has been prevented to perform his duties putting public to inconvenience. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court in the given facts and circumstances finds that there is not case for contempt at all nor it has been made out, let alone being a deliberate or willful disobedience of the order passed by the writ Court. Accordingly, the instant contempt petition is dismissed with a token cost of Rs.1,500/- (which has been reduced at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner) to be deposited by the petitioner with the District Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from today. The notices are discharged. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Rakesh/- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

In order to appreciate the issue involved, it will be relevant to take a note of background of the instant contempt petition. The record indicates that certain proceedings were pending before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, (for short, 'the Act of 1953'). The petitioner for the first time came up before the Court by means of the Writ Petition No.31824 (M/S) of 2018 [Anuruddh Kumar v. State of U.P. & Others], whereby a request was made that the proceedings pending under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 may be decided expeditiously and a Coordinate Bench of this Court by means of its order dated 31.10.2018 had passed the order and the relevant portion thereof is being reproduced hereinafter:- "Having regard to the innocuous nature of prayer made by the petitioner, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the court concerned to expedite the proceedings of the objection, under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in Original Misc. Case No. 3960 of 1987, Shiv Ram & others Vs. Balgar and conclude the same within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is further directed that the parties to the case shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, neither any such adjournment shall be granted by the Presiding Officer, except in exceptional circumstances." In view thereof, it would reveal that the proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 were expedited. Be that as it may, once again the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.5576 of 2023 (A-227) [Anuruddh Kumar v. State of U.P. & Others], whereby a Coordinate Bench of this Court by means of its order dated 01.11.2023 had passed the following order, which reads as under:- "Taking note of earlier order of this Court dated 31.10.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 31824 (M/S) of 2018 (Anuruddh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others) as also the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation (SOC) dated 24.03.2021 passed in Case No. 22 /2021 and another order dated 31.08.2022 passed by SOC in Case No. 39/2022, let respondent No. 3/Consolidation Officer, Sadar-II, District Barabanki shall appear in person tomorrow so as to explain as to why the case, in issue, has not been disposed of till date. Put up tomorrow i.e. 02.11.2023 as fresh." In furtherance thereof, the officer was required to explain as to why the issue had not been decided. Accordingly, on 02.11.2023, the Court taking note of the statement given by the learned standing counsel, dismissed the petition as infructuous. However for the ease of the reference, the order dated 02.11.2023 has been reproduced hereinafter:- "1. Case called out.

2. Officer concerned, in terms of order dated 01.11.2023, is present in Court today.

3. Heard.

4. Based upon the instructions received from Officer concerned, Shri Badrish Singh, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents states that the issue has been finally decided vide order dated 01.11.2023.

5. Taking note of the aforesaid, the present petition has now become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.

6. Appearance of the Officer present is dispensed with." Thus, it is the above quoted order dated 02.11.2023 which is said to have been violated by the authority concerned. A specific query was put to Shri Mahendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate as to how the order dated 02.11.2023 has been violated. Shri Dwivedi submits that once it was recorded in the order dated 02.11.2023 that the officer concerned had finally decided the matter on 01.11.2023 and a copy of the order was also provided to the Court. Later, upon an application moved by the respondents in the proceedings before the Consolidation Authorities for recall of the order dated 01.11.2023 the said officer has recalled the order dated 01.11.2023 by means of the order dated 31.05.2025 and thus the officer has committed willful contempt. It is further submitted by Shri Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Consolidation Authorities do not have power to recall/review their order, hence, in the aforesaid circumstances, it was a clear deliberate violation of the order passed by the Court, hence, the officer concerned be punished. Before proceeding further, it will also be relevant to notice an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 30.07.2025 and in pursuance whereof Mr. Rajesh Singh, Consolidation Officer, Sadar-II, Barabanki is present. The order dated 30.07.2025 reads as under:- "1. On 25.07.2025, following order was passed:- "1. Heard.

2. The instant contempt application has been filed by the applicant alleging disobedience of the order dated 02.11.2023 passed in Matters under Article 227 No. 5576 of 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by Radhey Shyam s/o Babu Lal in Original Misc. Case No. 3960 of 1987 (Shiv Ram & Ors. Vs. Balgar) before Consolidation Officer, Barabanki and as the same was not being decided, the petitioner filed a petition Misc. Single No. 31824 of 2018, which was disposed of on 31.10.2018 with direction to Court concerned to expedite the proceedings of the objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in Original Misc. Case No. 3960 of 1987 and conclude the same within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of the order. It is further submitted that the proceeding was going on, at the same time as pandemic Covid-19 was started, the applicant could not prefer the contempt application and he also filed another petition i.e. Matters under Article 227 No. 5576 of 2023.

4. The order dated 31.10.2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 31824 of 2018 is as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 4. In view of the proposed order, the requirement of issuance of notice to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is hereby dispensed with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that an appropriate direction may be issued to the court concerned for expediting the proceedings of the objection said to have been filed under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in Original Misc. Case No. 3960 of 1987, Shiv Ram & others Vs. Balgar. Having regard to the innocuous nature of prayer made by the petitioner, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the court concerned to expedite the proceedings of the objection, under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in Original Misc. Case No. 3960 of 1987, Shiv Ram & others Vs. Balgar and conclude the same within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is further directed that the parties to the case shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, neither any such adjournment shall be granted by the Presiding Officer, except in exceptional circumstances."

5. The orders dated 01.11.2023 and 02.11.2023 passed in Matters under Article 227 No. 5576 of 2023 are as under:- Order dated 01.11.2023: "Taking note of earlier order of this Court dated 31.10.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 31824 (M/S) of 2018 (Anuruddh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others) as also the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation (SOC) dated 24.03.2021 passed in Case No. 22 /2021 and another order dated 31.08.2022 passed by SOC in Case No. 39/2022, let respondent No. 3/Consolidation Officer, Sadar-II, District Barabanki shall appear in person tomorrow so as to explain as to why the case, in issue, has not been disposed of till date. Put up tomorrow i.e. 02.11.2023 as fresh." Order dated 02.11.2023: "1. Case called out.

2. Officer concerned, in terms of order dated 01.11.2023, is present in Court today.

3. Heard.

4. Based upon the instructions received from Officer concerned, Shri Badrish Singh, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents states that the issue has been finally decided vide order dated 01.11.2023.

5. Taking note of the aforesaid, the present petition has now become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.

6. Appearance of the Officer present is dispensed with."

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the aforesaid petition was listed on 02.11.2023, on which dated, on the basis of instructions of Consolidation Officer, it was informed that objection has already been decided on 01.11.2023. He also submits that vide order dated 01.11.2023, objection of Radhey Shyam was rejected. The Consolidation Officer has no right to review or recall the order which is passed in any consolidation proceeding. Radhey Shyam has also filed a restoration application on 04.11.2023, which was allowed by Consolidation Officer on 31.05.2025 in utter violations of law laid down by full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shivraji Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Allahabad & others reported in 1997 ALL. L.J. - 2363, hence, the respondent officer deliberately committed contempt of this Court.

7. List this case on 30.07.2025 at 11:30 A.M.

8. On the next date, the respondent shall appear in person before this Court along with complete record and shall inform that under what circumstances, the order dated 31.05.2025 was passed, which is contrary to law laid down by full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shivraji Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Allahabad & others (supra).

9. Mrs. Jayanti Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall communicate this order to Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Consolidation Officer for necessary compliance, forthwith.

10. Let a copy of this application be provided to Mrs. Jayanti Singh by learned counsel for the applicant, forthwith."

2. Sri Sunil Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays for some more time to ensure compliance of directions of this Court.

3. List this case on 08.08.2025 at 11:30 am in terms of earlier order dated 25.07.2025.". A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether if an order is passed by an authority either good, bad or indifferent in exercise of his judicial/quasi judicial functioning whether an incorrect order passed on merit can subject the officer to contempt proceedings. Shri Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner could not give a straight reply to the aforesaid query, however, he states that since the order passed by the Court has been violated, hence, the contempt has been made out. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State submits that the officer had passed an order on merits keeping in mind the order of expedition passed by the High Court. However, since the said order was passed in absence of the other party and the law is settled that if an order has been passed ex-parte and an application for recall is moved then the Consolidation Authorities do have the powers to recall ex-parte order. It is further urged by Shri Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State that irrespective of the fact that the order could or could not be recalled, but the fact remains that passing of the order was an exercise of his judicial functioning and an officer is protected by the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 as well as Section 49-A of the Act of 1953 and in terms whereof any act done in bonafide exercise of his powers cannot be subjected to contempt proceedings. It is, thus, urged by Shri Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the contempt petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and it must be dismissed and some costs must be imposed so that such attempts may not be repeated. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. Apparently, it is clear that insofar as the order passed by the writ Court dated 01.11.2023 is concerned, it only required the officer to inform what is the status of the proceedings and for the said purpose the matter was listed on 02.11.2023. On the very said date, it was informed to the Court that the matter had already been decided on 01.11.2023. The Court had not directed that the matter had to be decided in any one particular manner. The moment, the final orders were passed then the matter came to an end. Subsequently, if any application for recall was moved at the behest of the private-respondents in the consolidation proceedings that would be the subject matter of separate cause of action and could not be clubbed with the earlier petition wherein it was only required that the proceedings be finally decided. Even otherwise, once the application had been moved by the respondents before the Consolidation Officer and it has also been informed by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had also filed his objections to the recall application, contested the same on merits and did not raise any objection regarding any violation of the order of the writ Court or the contempt Court and only once the final order came to be passed on 31.05.2025 that the instant contempt petition was filed on 18.07.2025. In this view of the matter, apparently, this Court is of the clear view that no contempt is made out. A misadventure has been attempted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in furtherance thereof, the officer had to be called, who otherwise should have been working in his Court and because of being summoned, he has been prevented to perform his duties putting public to inconvenience. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court in the given facts and circumstances finds that there is not case for contempt at all nor it has been made out, let alone being a deliberate or willful disobedience of the order passed by the writ Court. Accordingly, the instant contempt petition is dismissed with a token cost of Rs.1,500/- (which has been reduced at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner) to be deposited by the petitioner with the District Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from today. The notices are discharged. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Rakesh/- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench