A Division Bench’s appellate order supersedes underlying orders, barring contempt proceedings before a Single Judge.

The petitioner’s house was demolished during an alleged encroachment-removal exercise relating to land in Mauza Jinpura, Arwal.

In C.W.J.C. No. 21809 of 2012, the Single Judge directed the Collector to examine the petitioner’s allegation that the demolition had occurred without proper measurement and, if established, to restore the house and recommend disciplinary action against the Circle Officer.

On 15 January 2014, the Single Judge recorded the District Magistrate’s undertaking that the petitioner’s possession over six decimals of Plot No. 102 would be restored by reconstruction, subject to removal of any encroachment found upon fresh proceedings.

In L.P.A. No. 717 of 2014, the Division Bench, by order dated 24 October 2016, modified the earlier order and directed the Collector to complete demarcation in the petitioner’s presence and thereafter take appropriate action in accordance with law; the needful was to be completed within one month of the parties appearing before the Collector.

Whether the orders passed by the Single Judge in the writ petition and earlier contempt proceedings merged into the Division Bench’s order dated 24 October 2016 in L.P.A. No. 717 of 2014.

Whether, after such merger, a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the earlier Single Judge orders was maintainable before a Single Judge of the High Court.

Whether the decision in Rajan Chadha v. Sanjay Arora enabled the present Single Judge to examine alleged non-compliance with or violation of the earlier contempt orders.

The Court applied the doctrine of merger, principally relying on Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359, under which, where an appellate forum modifies, reverses, or affirms the order under challenge, the appellate order becomes the operative and enforceable order, although the doctrine is not universally applicable and depends on the nature of the appellate jurisdiction and subject matter.

The Court also relied on Gangadhara Palo v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (2011) 4 SCC 602, Sri Rajesh Kumar v. Smt. Pushpa Rani (Patna High Court, 16 September 2016), and Balbir Singh v. Baldev Singh, (2025) 3 SCC 543, reiterating that an appellate order supersedes the subordinate order even where it merely confirms or modifies it.

The Court distinguished Rajan Chadha v. Sanjay Arora, observing that the present case concerned the maintainability of contempt proceedings after an appellate order, rather than a subsequent Single Judge impermissibly reviewing a prior finding of contempt.

The Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 717 of 2014 had expressly modified the order dated 15 January 2014 and substituted a specific direction for demarcation followed by action in accordance with law.

Applying the doctrine of merger, the Court held that the earlier writ order and the orders in the connected contempt proceedings no longer independently governed the parties; they merged into, and were superseded by, the Division Bench’s order dated 24 October 2016.

Consequently, any alleged non-compliance had to be assessed, if at all, with reference to the operative appellate order and could not be pursued before a Single Judge on the basis of the superseded orders.

The Court therefore did not adjudicate the petitioner’s substantive allegation that the State had failed to reconstruct his house; it decided only that the contempt petition was procedurally not maintainable before the Single Judge.

After that appellate order, no contempt petition based on the earlier orders could be maintained before a Single Judge.

The present contempt petition was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable, without a determination on the merits of the alleged non-compliance; pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.