Court No. - 10 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3862 of 2010 Petitioner :- Sukhvir Singh Respondent :- Jiya Lal Manjhi, Dy.Director Of Consolidation, Aligarh & Ors Petitioner Counsel :- Vinod Sinha,Mahesh Sharma Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that by order
26.3.2010 Respondent No. 1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Aligarh was
directed to decide the revisions pending between the parties within a period of
three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order
but the matter has not yet been decided. Next contention of the learned
counsel for the applicant is that despite the order dated 26.3.2010 passed by
this Court whereby effect and operration of the order dated 26.2.2010 passed
by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Eglas, Algarh was kept in abeyance, no
appropriate action is being taken by the authorities concerned to demolish the
construction raised after the passing of the order dated 26.2.2010.
I have perused the record which goes to show that the revisions were initially
transferred from the court of Opposite Party No. 1, Deputy Director of
Consolidation to ADM (City), Aligarh, however, the same was again
transferred to the court of Opposite Party No. 1 by the Collector, Aligarh by
order dated 19.4.2010. It appears that the order dated 26.3.2010 passed by this
Court was not speficially brought to the knowledge of the respondent No. 1
on account of which the same has not yet been complied with, and the
revision is still pending.
In view of the fact and circumstances of the case and keeping in view that fact
that the revisions are still pending, a direction is required to be given to the
respondent No. 1 to decide the said revisions.
As far as next contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned,
I do not find any merit in this argument since the latter part of the order dated
26.3.2010 was only to the extent of staying the effect and operation of the
order dated 26.2.2010 and no order was passed by this Court to demolish the
construction raised after the passing of the order dated 26.2.2010, as such, the
argument of the applicant is misconceived and it deserves to be rejected.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the opposite
party No. 1 that if the Revision Nos. 130 of 2007 and 1 of 2009 are still
pending, the same will be decided within a period of three months from the
date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Office to send a copy of this order to the Opposite Party No. 1.
The application is consigned to record.
Order Date :- 13.8.2010
vinay