Honble A.P. Sahi J.—This contempt petition has been filed alleging disobedience of the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. in Second Appeal No. 48 of 1995-96 and it is alleged that inspite of the restraint order, and the subsequent orders passed by the Board, the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 in particular have proceeded to raise constructions over the land in dispute. It is further alleged that the other opposite parties have abetted the same by permitting the raising of such constructions hence a clear case of contempt is made out making the opposite parties liable for the same and therefore, this Court should proceed in exercise of its power under Article 215 read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the opposite parties for wilfully and deliberately defying the orders passed by the Board of Revenue.

2. Notices were issued by this Court on 9.4.04 calling upon the opposite party Nos. 1,4 and 5 to answer this contempt petition. The opposite party No. 1 who is the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phoolpur, Allahabad had filed a counter-affidavit stating therein that the said opposite party has not permitted the raising of any constructions and, rather to the contrary, has passed orders on 27.11.03 to stop any constructions which were being attempted by the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5. It is urged that the said orders are already contained in Annexure 4 to the application.

3. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed to the said counter-affidavit of the opposite party No. 1 and the report of the office dated 27.5.04 indicates service on the opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 through the brother-in-law of the opposite party No. 4. However neither any Counsel has put in appearance nor opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 are represented.

4. Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that this matter should proceed further as this Court has already taken cognizance and issued notices on 9.4.04. Vide order dated 20.3.07 it was pointed out to the learned Counsel for the applicant that keeping in view nature of the litigation and the provisions applicable, the applicant should move an appropriate application alleging disobedience before the Board of Revenue, instead of filing this application before this Court. Arguments were invited on this and Sri Kesari learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant cannot move any such application before the Board of Revenue and in the absence of any such remedy this Court has rightly issued notices. He has further urged that even assuming for the sake of that arguments that such an application alleging contempt would be maintainable before the Court concerned, then too once this Court has taken cognizance , there is no justification for relegating the applicant to approach the same Court at this juncture.

5. Before proceeding to consider the arguments in detail, it is necessary to mention that these proceedings arise out of an order passed by the Board of Revenue in exercise of its power while entertaining a second appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The applicant Ajab Lal is the son of late Krishan Lal who had instituted a suit under section 229-B of the aforesaid Act for declaration of his rights which was claimed on the basis of a lease executed in the year 1951. It is alleged that the said lease was executed in favour of the grand father of the applicant, late Satya Narain (father of Krishan Lal) by the predecessor-in-interest of Ram Nagina Singh, who was the then Zamindar of the area in question. The land is in occupation since the time of his grand father on the basis of the said lease. It was executed prior to the abolition of Zamindari and after abolition, the applicant’s grand father and subsequently his father acquired rights under the aforesaid Act who became tenure holders of the property in question. It is alleged that Ram Nagina Singh during the pendency of the second appeal before the Board of Re