B.K.Narayana, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri V.C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri. S.N. Tangri, for opposite party No. 1 and Sri Lalit Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 6.
(2.) THE instant contempt application has been filed by the applicant al leging violation of interim order dated 4.6.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 2352 (M/S) of 2001. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Writ Petition No. 2352 (M/S) of 2004 was filed by the applicant against the order dated 29.8.2002 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Agra Division Agra rejecting the applicant's objection filed under Rule 285-1 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules challenging the validity of the auction sale of the petitioner's property comprising of a Cold Storage and Ice Factory and the order dated 14.5.2004 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow dismissing the revision preferred by the applicant against the order of Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Agra Division, Agra dated 29.8.2002. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the Writ Petition No. 2351 (M/S) of 2004 was filed before this Court on 29.5.2004 and since an appearance had been put in by the Counsel on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 at the admission stage, the hearing of the matter was adjourned and was ultimately on 4.6.2004 an order was passed by this Court after exchange of counter and rejoinder affidavits directing the case be listed in the first week of July, 2004 and till then the possession of the petitioner was directed not be disturbed in pursuance of the impugned order.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant next submitted that despite the re strain order dated 4.6.2004 passed by this Court in favour of the applicant, the opposite party No. 1 in connivance and collusion with the opposite parties No. 2 to 5 took forcible possession of cold storage and ice factory in the night of 6/7.6.2004 although the opposite parties were fully aware of the interim order dated 4.6.2006 passed by this Court in favour of the applicant as the said order bad been duly communicated to all the opposite parties by the evening of 6.6.2001. Learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently urged that neither dur ing the course of arguments the possession of the applicant over the premises in question was disputed by the opposite party No. 1 nor there is any averment in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 in the Writ Petition No. 2352 (M/S) of 2004 that the opposite party No. 1 had taken pos session of the disputed premises before passing of the interim order dated 4.6.2004 or that the opposite party No. 1 was in possession of the premises in dispute.;