A civil court order overlooked by Jigna Police subsequently allowed construction to continue on disputed land in Mirzapur. This oversight has, consequently, sparked considerable tension in the community, as residents passionately voice their concerns over the legal and ethical implications. Furthermore, see how Ashok Maurya’s grievance unfolded, effectively highlighting the struggles faced by locals seeking justice.

🏛️ Civil Court Order Overlooked: Analysis of Grievance Concerning Non-Compliance in Mirzapur

This case centers on a civil court order overlooked by the very police station responsible for enforcing it. Ashok Kumar Maurya filed two related grievances over the alleged non-compliance and contempt of that order by opposing parties. First, he appealed directly to the local police station (Jigna). Then, when that failed, he escalated the matter within the Uttar Pradesh administration. This document lays out both complaints. It also analyzes what they reveal about enforcement failures.

---

I. Grievance Overview and Key Details

The core issue is simple. The Station House Officer (SHO) of Jigna Police Station, District Mirzapur, failed to enforce a provisional injunction. A Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mirzapur, had issued that injunction. Despite it, the opposing party continued construction and encroachment activities on the disputed land. Specifically, they dug a house foundation — the clearest sign yet of a civil court order overlooked in practice, not just on paper.

Grievance 1: GOVUP/E/2024/0096233 (Latest)

Detail	Description
Complainant	Ashok Kumar Maurya
Date of Receipt	28/12/2024
Received By	Uttar Pradesh
Current Status	Grievance received
Action Date	28/12/2024
Forwarded To	Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary), Chief Minister Secretariat, U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow
Core Allegation	The SHO Jigna repeatedly promised to comply with the court order. Yet anti-social elements dug the foundation of a house on the impugned boundary. This happened just a day before the complaint was filed. It came without court permission, directly contradicting the SHO’s assurances.

Grievance 2: GOVUP/E/2023/0034257 (Earlier)

Detail	Description
Complainant	Ashok Kumar Maurya
Date of Receipt	27/05/2023
Received By	Uttar Pradesh
Addressed To	SHO, Police Station Jigna, District Mirzapur
Core Allegation	Maurya met the SHO in person. He handed over a copy of the stay order. Still, no one made any attempt to stop the work. This amounted to contempt of the Honourable Court’s order. Therefore, Maurya stressed that the SHO bore responsibility for this disobedience, since enforcing court orders falls squarely within police duty.

Taken together, the two grievances span nearly nineteen months. That gap alone tells its own story: a civil court order overlooked once rarely stays overlooked only once. Despite an explicit court order, a documented in-person handover of the stay order, and repeated departmental assurances, the disputed construction still went ahead. In short, few administrative failures illustrate the distance between paper compliance and ground reality as clearly as this one does.

---

II. Judicial Order and Disputed Property Details

The grievance rests on a specific court order. Understanding its scope helps clarify what the police failed to enforce.

Details of the Provisional Injunction

• Issuing Authority: Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mirzapur.
• Date (Cited): 22/09/2023. This date appears on the document itself. It likely comes from a subsequent extract or a related order, while the hearing on application 6C was originally fixed for 15.07.2023.
• Basis for Injunction: The judge reviewed revenue records. These included the Extract from List 10C, Khasra Crop Year 1429, Paper No. 10C/2009. Based on this, the judge found sufficient ground to issue a provisional injunction, since without it, the claim’s purpose risked being defeated.
• Directive: The order forbade Respondent No. 1 from proceeding onto the land parcel. This is complainant No. 105, with an acreage of 0.04200, marked A, B, C, D on the vision map, in Village Vihasda Khurd, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur.
• Conditions: The order remained provisional until the court disposed of the objection to application 6C, fixed for 15.07.2023. It would lapse automatically if any other court issued a conflicting order. Meanwhile, litigants had to comply with Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Under Indian civil procedure, a provisional injunction issued through Order 39 exists to preserve the status quo. Specifically, it applies while a court weighs the underlying dispute. In other words, the injunction is not a final verdict on who owns the land. Instead, it works as an interim safeguard. It freezes the situation so that neither party can act unilaterally before the court decides. Because the injunction depends so heavily on timely enforcement, any delay or refusal by local police effectively strips it of its purpose. This is exactly how a civil court order gets overlooked in day-to-day practice: not through a single dramatic breach, but through quiet inaction. Even so, the order technically remains valid on paper.

---

III. Civil Court Order Overlooked: Critical Analysis of Police and Administrative Action

A wide gap separates the SHO’s promises of compliance from what actually happened on the ground. The timeline below traces how a civil court order overlooked at the local level escalated into a full administrative complaint.

Failure of the Jigna Police Station (SHO)

1. Early Non-Action (Grievance 2 — May 2023): Maurya met the SHO and handed over the stay order directly. Even so, no one stopped the work. This points to a fundamental failure of duty. After all, enforcing judicial directives is central to the rule of law, and the complainant warned the SHO plainly about the consequences of disobedience.
2. Breach of Assurance (Grievance 1 — December 2024): The later grievance raises the stakes further. It suggests a deliberate disregard for the law, coming right after officials had already given their word. Specifically, the SHO reportedly assured Maurya that no one had encroached on the court order and that it would be complied with in letter and spirit. Then the foundation-digging happened anyway, proving those assurances false. At the very least, it exposed a total lack of effective supervision and enforcement. Because the digging took place just a day before the filing, it directly contravenes the court’s “forbidden to proceed” directive.

Escalation to the Chief Minister’s Secretariat

Having exhausted the local police mechanism, Maurya escalated his grievance through the Uttar Pradesh Jansunwai-Samadhan portal to the Chief Minister’s Secretariat. He addressed it to Shri Arvind Mohan, Joint Secretary. As a result, the complaint shifted. What began as a simple request for enforcement became a broader appeal for administrative accountability, aimed at a police agency that had allegedly failed its primary duty and possibly filed misleading reports.

This kind of escalation is common across Uttar Pradesh’s grievance system. Typically, citizens turn to the state’s online grievance portal only after local police or revenue officials fail to act. The portal gives ordinary citizens a direct channel to senior bureaucrats. However, it also means the Secretariat regularly ends up handling matters a functioning police station should have resolved in the first instance.

---

IV. Legal and Administrative Implications of a Civil Court Order Overlooked

This situation carries two distinct implications. One is legal, involving contempt; the other is administrative, involving dereliction of duty.

• Contempt of Court: The opposing party continued construction despite an explicit court order forbidding it. Specifically, they dug a foundation on disputed property. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, this constitutes a clear act of civil contempt against the court’s provisional injunction, which existed to preserve the status quo.
• Dereliction of Duty: The SHO, Jigna, bears the primary administrative responsibility here. Once a police officer learns of a judicial order and is asked to enforce it, inaction becomes a serious lapse. This is especially true when the goal is to prevent a breach of peace and contempt of court. Worse still, offering false assurances of compliance while the contemptuous act proceeds unchecked warrants an internal inquiry and disciplinary action.

The Need for Transparency and Accountability

Maurya’s demand for transparency and accountability is well-founded. After all, a civil court order overlooked by the police undermines public trust in the judicial process more broadly. Through his escalation to the Joint Secretary, he hopes higher administrative authority will:

1. Immediately Halt Construction: The District Superintendent of Police must issue a fresh, high-level directive. This should ensure the immediate and forceful cessation of all work on the disputed plot, Khasra No. 105.
2. Investigate Police Conduct: Authorities must order an investigation into the SHO’s conduct. Specifically, they need to determine why the court order went unenforced, and why the applicant received assurances that the opposing party’s actions immediately contradicted.
3. Report Compliance to the Court: The executive branch must inform the court of the non-compliance. Only then can contempt proceedings begin against the errant parties.

Together, the two grievances trace a troubling arc. What started as a direct appeal for intervention became a broader appeal against administrative failure. This progression illustrates a severe breakdown in the local machinery responsible for maintaining law and order and upholding judicial directives. Now, the Joint Secretary’s office must rectify this systemic failure and restore the sanctity of the provisional injunction.

---

V. Civil Court Order Overlooked: What This Case Signals

Beyond the specifics of Khasra No. 105, this case highlights a wider pattern. Simply put, a civil court order overlooked at the enforcement stage carries no more weight than a suggestion. Once a police station receives a certified copy of an injunction, the law expects swift, verifiable action. It does not expect a verbal assurance that quietly evaporates once construction resumes.

For citizens navigating similar disputes, a few lessons stand out. First, always retain documented proof that you delivered a copy of the court order to the relevant police station, along with the date and the officer’s name. Second, if police assurances aren’t backed by visible action within a reasonable time, escalate quickly rather than waiting — for instance, through the Anti Bhu-Mafia Portal for land-encroachment cases specifically. After all, delays only give the opposing party more room to alter the ground reality — more room, in effect, for another civil court order to be overlooked. Third, keep detailed, timestamped records of any construction that continues despite the order. This evidence becomes critical if contempt proceedings follow.

For now, Maurya’s case sits with the Chief Minister’s Secretariat. Ultimately, many hope it will produce a response that finally translates the court’s words into action on the ground — and ensures this civil court order is overlooked no longer.inally translates the court’s words into action on the ground — and ensures this civil court order is overlooked no longer.nd ensuring the sanctity of the provisional injunction.