# Krishna Dutt Pandey & Ors v. Jt Director of Consolidation & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 345
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-02
- **Case number:** Consolidation No. 7498 of 1989
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-dutt-pandey-ors-v-jt-director-of-consolidation-ors-46747
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Consolidation of Holding Act,
1953 - Sections 9 and 11(1) - U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Reform Act, 1950
- Sections 8 and 20 - Khasra and
Khatauni of 1356 Fasli - Entry of the name
- Entitlement of possession - Names of
the petitioners were recorded in 1356
Fasli and 1359 Fasli as well as in the basic
year entry of 1386 Fasli - Said entries
could not have been unsettled without any
substantial evidence - Section 20 of UP
ZA&LR Act secure the possession of the
person, whom name is recorded as an
occupant of any land, other than grove
land...., in Khasra or Khatauni of 1356
Fasli - Held, in case a lease of land was
issued for agricultural purpose and not
covered by Section 8 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act
and the name was recorded as occupant
of the land in the Khasra or Khatauni of
1356-Fasli, the entry shall be deemed to
be correct and final and confers all the
rights, if not challenged. (Para 16, 17 and
18)
Writ Petition partly allowed .(E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

2 All. Krishna Dutt Pandey & Ors. Vs. Jt Director of Consolidation & Ors.
345
responsibility under Section 11 C of the
Act also, when the orders sought to be
implemented has been passed allegedly on
08.06.1972 i.e. nearly fifty years ago. He
will summon all records regarding to the
entry of Banjar, Old Parti and New Parti in
favour of the Gaon Sabha, and after
considering the same as also after hearing
the counsel for the Gaon Sabha he should
pass
appropriate
orders
strictly
in
accordance with law.
----------
(2021)02ILR A345
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Consolidation No. 7498 of 1989

Krishna Dutt Pandey & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Jt Director of Consolidation & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
H S Sahai, Priti Saxena, Uma Shankar Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
S P Shukla, Anand Kumar Shukla, Avinash
Chandra Pandey, R P Shukla, Rahul Roshan
Dubey, Ravi Kishore Joshi, Vivek Kumar
Tiwari

A. Civil Law - Consolidation of Holding Act,
1953 - Sections 9 and 11(1) - U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Reform Act, 1950
- Sections 8 and 20 - Khasra and
Khatauni of 1356 Fasli - Entry of the name
- Entitlement of possession - Names of
the petitioners were recorded in 1356
Fasli and 1359 Fasli as well as in the basic
year entry of 1386 Fasli - Said entries
could not have been unsettled without any
substantial evidence - Section 20 of UP
ZA&LR Act secure the possession of the
person, whom name is recorded as an
occupant of any land, other than grove
land...., in Khasra or Khatauni of 1356
Fasli - Held, in case a lease of land was
issued for agricultural purpose and not
covered by Section 8 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act
and the name was recorded as occupant
of the land in the Khasra or Khatauni of
1356-Fasli, the entry shall be deemed to
be correct and final and confers all the
rights, if not challenged. (Para 16, 17 and
18)
Writ Petition partly allowed .(E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Ram Avadh Vs Ram Das, (2008) 8 SCC 58,
2. Mohd. Naimuddin & ors. versus Deputy
Director of Consolidation Barabanki, 2020(147)
RD 90.
3. Raghunath Singh & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
1961 RD 337
4. Mohd. Naimuddin & ors. versus Deputy
Director of Consolidation Barabanki, 2020(147)
RD 90
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Sri Avinash Chandra
Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed challenging the order dated 13.07.1982
passed in Case No.3563 by the Consolidation
Officer and the order dated 26.07.1989
passed in Revision No.1402/942 by the Joint
Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, by
means of which the order passed by the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation,
Musafirkhana, District-Sultanpur in Appeal
No.234 has been set aside and the order
passed by the Consolidation Officer has been
upheld.

3. The brief facts of the case, for
adjudication of the present writ petition, are
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the dispute pertains to Plot No.366,
which was recorded in the name of the
petitioners as bhumidhars in the basic year.
On publication of record under Section 9 of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
1953(hereinafter referred to as the Act of
1953), the opposite party nos. 3 to 8 filed
objections claiming that the parties hailed
from common ancestor and the land in
dispute is old grove and the names of the
opposite parties have been omitted to be
recorded, as such, their names should also
be recorded alongwith the petitioners. The
claim of the opposite parties was refuted by
the petitioners and according to them, the
pedigree shown by the opposite parties
before the Consolidation Officer was
incomplete, the family is not joint family,
the parties have their separate holdings and
separate groves. It was further alleged that
no party has any concern with the land of
the others and the zamindar had executed
patta on 14.04.1950 in favour of the
petitioners and at no point of time, neither
the land in dispute was recorded in the
name of the common ancestor nor the
opposite parties were in possession over the
land in dispute. The dispute was referred by
the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the
Consolidation Officer and the parties
tendered their evidence. After evidence, the
Consolidation Officer, placing reliance on a
partition deed dated 04.05.1948 allowed the
objection filed by the opposite parties by
means of the order dated 13.07.1982. The
petitioners had challenged the order passed
by the Consolidation Officer in appeal
under Section 11(1) of Act of 1953, which
came up before the Assistant Settlement
Officer Consolidation, who by means of the
order dated 10.05.1985 allowed the appeal
in
favour
of
the
petitioners.
Being
aggrieved, the opposite party nos. 3 to 8
had filed a revision under Section 48 of Act
of 1953 which came up before the Joint
Director of Consolidation, who by means
of the order dated 26.07.1989 allowed the
revision and set aside the order passed by
the
Assistant
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation and maintained the order
passed by the Consolidation Officer. Hence
the present writ petition has been filed by
the petitioners.

4. During pendency of the writ
petition, the petitioner nos.1 to 7 had died.
Therefore their legal heirs were substituted.
Opposite party nos. 13 to 19 were also
impleaded on an application moved by the
petitioners as predecessor-in-interest of
them who was party before the courts
below was not impleaded while filing the
writ petition. The opposite party nos. 4 to 6
and 8 had also died. Therefore their legal
heirs were also substituted.

5. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioners was that the Plot No.366
was
recorded
in
the
name
of
the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in
the basic year and there was no jointness
between the petitioners and the private
opposite parties. The names of the
predecessor- -in-interest of the petitioners
were recorded in 1356 Fasli and 1359 Fasli.
Therefore they have matured their title and
right as bhumidhars because the said
entries were in the nature of title. The name
of the petitioners were also recorded in the
basic year, i.e.,1386 Fasli as bhumidhar.
There was no jointness between the
petitioners and the private opposite parties.
The petitioners and the private opposite
parties had separate holdings and separate
groves which has come in the evidence
before the courts below. The Zamindar had
granted patta on 14.04.1950 in favour of
the
predecessor-in-interest
of
the
petitioners and on the basis of same, they
were continuing in possession of the said
2 All. Krishna Dutt Pandey & Ors. Vs. Jt Director of Consolidation & Ors.
347
plot. The land was never recorded in the
name of the common ancestor of petitioner
and the private opposite parties and the
opposite parties were never in possession
whereas the petitioners are in possession of
the property in question on the basis of
aforesaid patta. The opposite parties never
claimed their possession. Therefore, the
petitioners are entitled for the said plot on
the basis of adverse possession also.
Learned court below has recorded a finding
that at the time of patta, the land was in the
possession of the Zamindar. Therefore
question of partition does not arise.

6. He further submitted that the patta
was proved before the Consolidation
Officer. Therefore its validity cannot be
questioned. The private respondents have
claimed their rights on the basis of the
partition deed, which is a private document
and it was not proved. He further submitted
that while filing objection, the partition
deed was not claimed and subsequently, the
case was developed and the claim was set
up on the basis of alleged partition deed.
Therefore also the private respondents are
not entitled for the plot in question.

7. On the basis of above, learned
counsel for the petitioners had submitted
that the writ petition is liable to be allowed
and the impugned orders are liable to be
quashed.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has relied on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Ram
Avadh versus Ram Das; 2008(8) SCC 58
and judgment of this Court in the case of
Mohd. Naimuddin and others versus
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
Barabanki; 2020(147) RD 90.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent
had submitted that the plot in question was
in possession of ancestors of the petitioners
and the private opposite parties and it has
been admitted by the petitioner no.1 in his
evidence before the Consolidation Officer
that in the grove, grave of the ancestors are
situated. He has also admitted the partition
but he had failed to disclose as to what was
given to the opposite parties. The opposite
parties had proved their case on the basis of
partition deed and the recommendations of
Prayag and Ram Narayan were also
recorded. Prayag was the karta of the
family and it has been admitted by the
appellate authority also but even then the
appeal was allowed without mentioning the
facts and points raised by the opposite
parties. It has been recorded by the
revisional authority that the family tree was
not disputed by the parties and in the
Kafiyat column the names of trees are also
mentioned. He further submitted that the
petitioner no.1 had also admitted in his
evidence that the plot in dispute is an old
grove and it was not divided. Considering
the evidence produced by the parties and
recording a categorical finding, the revision
has been allowed. He had also submitted
that the alleged patta, on the basis of which
the rights are being claimed by the
petitioners, is of 14.04.1950 when the patta
could not have been issued by the
Zamindar because after 1947 there was ban
on issuance of patta. He also submitted that
patta of grove, which is a public land could
not have been issued. On the basis of
above, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the writ petition has been
filed on misconceived and baseless grounds
and it is liable to be dismissed as order
passed by the revisional authority and
consolidation officer does not suffer from
any illegality or infirmity.

9. I have considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the orders passed by the courts
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
below,the documents placed on record and
the pleadings of the parties.

10. The dispute in the present writ
petition relates to plot no.366/3-3-0. The
said plot was recorded in the basic year in
Khata No.190 in the name of the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners.
Two objections were filed under Section 9
of the Act of 1953, one by Ram Milan and
others and second by Kedar nath and others
claiming their rights on the plot in question
alleging that the petitioners and opposite
parties are living together and the plot in
question is an ancestral property. The
Consolidation Officer had allowed the
claim of the opposite parties on the basis of
admission of the petitioner's witness that
the grove is old and graves of ancestors are
in grove and the partition had taken place
50-60 years ago but he failed to disclose as
to what was given to the opposite parties in
lieu of the said plot. The Settlement Officer
Consolidation recorded a finding in the
appellate order that there is no mention of
partition deed in the objection filed under
Section 9 and the plea of partition was
taken subsequently during pendency of the
case and it is a private document. Therefore
it is not admissible. It has also been
recorded that the partition is dated
04.05.1948 while the patta filed by the
petitioners is dated 14.04.1950 and the said
patta has been proved and it was also
proved that at the time of grant of patta, the
Zamindar was in possession of the land in
question and since the partition is not
proved therefore allowed the appeal and
directed to continue the entries recorded in
the basic year. On being challenged, the
revisional authority held that the appellate
authority without considering that the grove
was old and also as to whether the patta
could have been made in the year 1950 and
as to why only names of three branches has
been mentioned in the patta has allowed the
appeal. It has also not considered that
whether on the basis of names of three
branches in the patta, the rights of the
fourth branch, whose name has been left,
would be extinguished and maintained the
order passed by the Consolidation Officer.

11. The claim by the opposite parties
has been setup on the plot on the ground of
old and ancestral property and on the basis
of old trees and grove on the plot in
question and on the basis of a document
dated 04.05.1948, which is in the nature of
a partition deed. They had given a family
tree before the Consolidation Officer, in
which the name of the father of Prayag,
Kashiram, Ram Narayan and Mahaveer
was not given as it is not mentioned in the
order while they were claiming the same on
the basis of old and ancestral property
whereas the name of their father has been
given in the order passed by the revisional
authority as Girja and it is mentioned that
the petitioner has stated in his evidence that
Girja was the head of the family. The
revisional authority has recorded a finding
that, at the time when the alleged patta was
issued, there was grove on the plot in
question and the patta of plot could not
have been made while Izazat Nama for
grove could have been given. It has also
recorded a finding that after 1947, there
was a ban on patta, therefore it could not
have been issued and it has been got issued
only to deprive the petitioners from their
rights.

12. The learned revisional authority
has though placed reliance on the document
dated 04.05.1998 purporting to be a
partition deed between the parties and
allowed the claim of the opposite parties on
the basis of the said deed but failed to
consider as to whether the same could have
2 All. Krishna Dutt Pandey & Ors. Vs. Jt Director of Consolidation & Ors.
349
been considered to be a valid document
because on the one hand plea of same was
not taken in the objection under Section 9
and on the other hand the same was not
proved. The revisional authority has also
not considered and recorded any finding as
to whether the document dated 04.05.1948
is worthy of acceptance or not in view of
finding recorded by the appellate authority.
As per evidence of one Sahab deen, who
claimed that he was recovering the lagan at
the time of Zamindar, plot in question was
in possession of the Zamindar at the time of
patta. Therefore if the plot in question was
in possession of Zamindar at the time of
patta then the question of it in possession of
opposite parties and it's partition by means
of alleged partition deed does not arise.

13. In case the plot in question could
not have been ancestral property and in
possession of Zamindar at the relevant
point of time then the question arises as to
whether the patta could have been issued
by the Zamindar or not and if it could have
been issued as to whether the patta was
valid and not void under Section 8 of U.P.
Z.A. & L.R. Act 1950, which reads as
under:-

"8.Contract entered into after
August 8,1946 to become void from the
date of vesting-Any contract for grazing or
gathering of produce from land or the
collection of forest produce or fish from
any forest or fisheries entered into after the
eighth day of August, 1946 between an
intermediary and any other person in
respect of any private forest, fisheries, or
land lying in such estate shall become void
with effect from the date of vesting.

14. A Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Raghunath Singh and another
versus State of U.P. and another; 1961 RD
337 has held that a lease of land for the
purpose of cultivation which confers on the
lessess not merely a right in the land but
also the right to exclusive possession of the
land and to turn it to cultivation, is not a
transaction covered by Section 8. The
relevant paragraph is extracted below:-

"In our opinion Section 8 is not
attracted in the case of leases of land
where the purposes of the leases is to use
the land for the purpose of agriculture,
horticulture,
pisciculture
etc.
It
is
sometimes unavoidable that in the process
of using the land for these purposes
reclamation also is done and what is known
as forest produce is collected or removed in
the process. Land must be cleared of
unwanted growth to turn it usefully to
agriculture etc. The mere fact that these
operations are necessarily involved in
making the land agriculture worthy will not
take away from the transaction their true
nature as leases of land. A contract for the
collection of forest produce must in order
that it may be such a transaction be
contract essentially for the collection etc. of
the produce. It will not be such a contract if
the removal etc. of the forest has to be done
to make the land agriculture worthy- the
object and purpose of the lease. In the
instant case, admittedly the leases were for
using the land for purpose of agriculture
and horticulture etc. As a matter of fact the
lessees were also entered as hereditary
tenants of the lands and later after the
abolition of zamindaris as sirdars. They
have been paying the land revenue also
assessed on them to the government. It is
not possible in these circumstances to hold
that the leases were contracts for the
collection of forest produce. The contract
referred to in Section 8 does not
contemplate
the
conferment
on
the
promises any right in or over land, it, on
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the other hand, merely refers to the right to
collect forest produce or to perform certain
acts over the land. A lease of land for the
purpose of cultivation which confers on the
lesses not merely a right in the land but
also the right to exclusive possession of the
land and to turn it to cultivation, is not a
transaction covered by Section 8. It is not
possible under the circumstances to accept
that the leases in favour of the petitioners
were void under Section 8 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & land Reforms Act.
Being leases for agricultural purposes the
lessee acquired, at first the status of
hereditary tenants and later when the
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
was enforced of Sirdars of the lands therein
transferred."

15. A Coordinate bench of this Court,
in the case of Mohd. Naimuddin and
others
versus
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation Barabanki; 2020(147) RD
90, after considering the judgment in the
case of Raghu Nath Singh and Anr.
versus State of U.P. and Anr.(supra) has
held that a lease of land for the purpose of
cultivation which confers on the lessee not
merely a right on the land but also the right
to exclusive possession of the land and to
turn it to cultivation is not a transaction
covered by Section 8. Hence, where the
land was for agricultural purpose the lessee
acquired at first a status of hereditary tenant
and later when the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act was
enforced of Sirdar of the lands therein
transferred.

16. Section 20 of the U.P. Z.A. &
L.R. Act provides that where a person is
recorded as an occupant of any land [other
than grove land....] in Khasra or Khatauni
of 1356 Fasli, which has been taken as the
base year, he shall be entitled to retain
possession thereof. The Hon'ble Apex
Court, in the case of Ram Avadh versus
Ram Das; 2008 (8) SCC 58, has held that
if the entry was not challenged it could not
be doubted and have to be deemed to be
correct in view of explanation III to Section
20 which provides that the entries in the
year 1356 Fasli is final and confers all
rights on occupant. Section 20 reads as
under:-

" 20. A tenant of Sir, sub-tenant
or an occupant to be an adhivasi Every
person who-

(a) on the date immediately
preceding the date of vesting was or has
been deemed to be in accordance with the
provisions of this Act]-

(i) except as provided in[subclause (i) of Clause (b)], a tenant of sir
other than a tenant referred to in Clause
(ix) of Section 19 or in whose favour
hereditary rights accrue in accordance
with the provisions of Section 10; or

(ii) except as provided in[subclause (i) of Clause (b)], a sub-tenant other
than a sub-tenant referred to in proviso to
sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the United
Provinces Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947
(U.P. Act X of 1947), or in sub-section (4)
of Section 47 of the United Provinces
Tenancy Act, 1939 (U.P. Act XVII of 1939)
of any land other than grove land,

(b) was recorded as occupant,-

(i) of any land[other than grove
land or land to which Section 16 applies or
land referred to in the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 27 of the U.P.
Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947]in the
khasra or khatauni of 1356-F prepared
under Section 28[33]respectively of the
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U.P. Act III
of 1901), or who was on the date
immediately preceding the date of vesting
entitled to regain possession thereof under
2 All. Krishna Dutt Pandey & Ors. Vs. Jt Director of Consolidation & Ors.
351
Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 27
of
the
United
Provinces
Tenancy
(Amendment) Act, 1947 (U.P. Act X of
1947); or

(ii) of any land to which Section
16 applies, in the[khasra or khatauni of
1356 fasli prepared under Sections 28 and
33 respectively of]the United Provinces
Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U.P. Act III of
1901), but who was not in possession in the
year 1356-F;

shall, unless he has become a
bhumidhar of the land under sub-section
(2) of Section 18 or an asami under Clause
(h) of Section 21, be called adhivasi of the
land and shall, subject to the provisions of
this Act, be entitled to take or retain
possession thereof.

Explanation I.- Where a person
referred to in Clause (b) was evicted from
the land after June 30, 1948, he shall
notwithstanding anything in any order, be
deemed to be a person entitled to regain
possession of the land.

Explanation II.. Where any entry
in the records referred to in Clause (b) has
been corrected before the date of vesting
under or in accordance with the provisions
of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U P.
Act III of 1901), the entry so corrected
shall for the purposes of the said clause,
prevail].

[Explanation
III.-
For
the
purposes of Explanation II an entry shall
be deemed to have been corrected before
the date of vesting if an order or decree of
a competent Court requiring any correction
in records had been made before the said
date and had become final even though the
correction may not have been incorporated
in the record.

Explanation IV.- For purposes of
this section 'occupant' as respects any land
does not include a person who was entitled
as an intermediary to the land or any share
therein in the Year 1356 fasli.]"

17. In view of above, in case a lease
of land was issued for agricultural purpose
and not covered by Section 8 of U.P. Z.A.
& L.R. Act and the name was recorded as
occupant of the land in the Khasra or
Khatauni of 1356-Fasli, the entry shall be
deemed to be correct and final and confers
all the rights, if not challenged.

18. In the present case, it is not in
dispute that the names of the petitioners
were recorded in 1356 Fasli and 1359 Fasli
as well as in the basic year entry of 1386
Fasli. Therefore the said entries could not
have been unsettled without any substantial
evidence in favour of the opposite parties
and without examining the correctness of
the document dated 04.05.1948 which is in
the nature of partition deed. The revisional
authority posed some questions but without
answering the same on the basis of any
cogent evidence and any finding regarding
nature of land in dispute on the basis of
revenue records and without considering
the provisions of Section 8 and 20 of U.P.
Z.A. & L.R. Act has allowed the revision.

19. In view of above, this Court is of
the view that the impugned order is not
sustainable in the eyes of law, which is
liable to be set aside and reconsidered by
the revisional authority. Thus the order
dated 26.07.1989 passed in Revision
No.1402/942 by the opposite party no.1 is
set aside and the matter is remanded to the
revisional authority to decide the revision
afresh in accordance with law and in the
light of the observations made hereinabove
expeditiously. An endeavour shall be made
by the revisional authority to decide the
revision within a period of six months from
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the date of production of certified copy of
this order on priority basis.

20. The writ petition is partly
allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as
to costs.
----------
(2021)02ILR A352
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Contempt No. 240 of 2021

Baquar Husain Zaidi ...Applicant
Versus
Safdar Husain ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, Varun Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
-----

A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section
10
r/w
12-application-initiation
of
contempt proceedings for non-compliance
of the order- the board of revenue passed
order of status quo which have been
violated by the respondents-court declines
to
issue
notice
in
the
contempt
proceedings as applicant can avail other
alternate
remedy
as
available
in
Manual(Uttar
Pradesh
Revenue
Court
Manual) under the provision of Chapter
43 Clause 460-clause 460 clearly provides
that any decree or order passed under the
provision of the Code, 2006 can be
executed as per the procedure prescribed
in Chapter 5 of the Manual.(Para 1 to 20)

The petition is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

E. Bapanaiah Vs K.S. Raju (2015) 1 SCC 451
(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri H.K. Bhatt, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. The present contempt petition has
been filed under Section 10 read with
Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1971')
praying
for
initiation
of
contempt
proceedings for the non compliance of the
orders dated 13.12.2017 and 11.02.2020
passed by Board of Revenue, Lucknow in
Revision No.2060 of 2017 (Safdar Husain
vs. Atahar Husain & others), under Section
209
of
Land
Revenue
Act,
1901
(hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1901").

3. It is contended that the Board of
Revenue had passed orders of status quo
which have been violated by the respondent
herein and thus, it is prayed that the
contempt proceedings be initiated against
the respondent.

4. A question before this Court would
be as to whether the present contempt
petition filed under Section 10 of the Act,
1971 praying for initiation of contempt
proceedings against an order passed by the
Board of Revenue would be maintainable.
for deciding this question, the Court has
taken the assistance of Sri. H.K.Bhatt,
learned Additional Chief Standing counsel.

5. The Apex Court in the case of E.
Bapanaiah vs. K.S. Raju reported in
(2015) 1 SCC 451, has held as under:-

"25. Powers of the High Courts to
punish for contempt including the powers
to punish for contempt of itself flow from
Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act,