I.M.QUDDUSI, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant.
(2.) VIDE order dated 23.11.1995 passed in writ petition No. 8554 of 1994, Raghu Nath v. District Magistrate, Gorakhpur and others, it was directed that the petitioner shall not be evicted except in accordance with law and the petitioner shall also be at liberty to apply for the benefits of Section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 before the Prescribed Authority if he so advised provided that it so is available to the petitioner. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that he has moved an application before the District Magistrate who directed to record the name of the petitioner over the khatas in question but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order subsequently on 19.9.1996 in which be has observed that the petitioner had wrongly obtained the order of the District Magistrate by cheat­ing and as such the name of the petitioner was cancelled.
(3.) THIS Court only directed that the eviction of the petitioner shall not be made except in accordance with law and also that the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for the benefits before the Prescribed Authority under Section 209. Admittedly the petitioner is still in possession over the disputed khatas in question. The matter of title or rights of the petitioner that the Khatas in question was not considered by this Court and no direction was issued to record the name of the petitioner against those khatas. In View of this no case of contempt is made but.;