Lucknow: The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has taken serious exception to an alleged attempt to influence Gonda Civil Judge (Senior Division) Shabina Khan in connection with a land dispute pending since 1997.
The Court observed that the alleged pressure exerted on the judicial officer through a telephone call by 2010 batch IAS officer of Uttar Pradesh cadre, Ms Durga Shakti Nagpal, Divisional Commissioner of Devipatan Mandal, prima facie struck at the independence of the judiciary and obstructed the administration of justice.
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi made the observations while hearing a transfer application filed by Jyoti Vidya Mandir School against the Nagar Palika Parishad, Gonda, concerning the long-pending civil suit.
The High Court has directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate court dealing with criminal contempt matters, after obtaining necessary directions from the Chief Justice or the senior-most judge.
Importantly, the Court’s observations are prima facie in nature. The referral for contempt consideration does not amount to a final finding of guilt against Nagpal.
1997 Land Dispute at the Centre of Controversy
The underlying dispute concerns several parcels of Nazul land recorded in the name of the Commissioner of the Devipatan division.
According to the version presented before the High Court on behalf of the Divisional Commissioner, the land had been reserved for construction of an office building and other government purposes.
The state authorities alleged that a school building had subsequently been constructed on the land, leading to the litigation.
The civil suit has remained pending since 1997, making it a nearly three-decade-old dispute. The case is presently at the evidence stage, and a status quo order is also in force.
The school had approached the High Court seeking transfer of the case outside the Devipatan division, alleging that government officials were misusing their positions and exerting undue pressure on the court.
How the Alleged Phone Call Became the Focus
The controversy intensified after Civil Judge (Senior Division) Shabina Khan reported an alleged telephone conversation with Divisional Commissioner Durga Shakti Nagpal.
According to the judicial officer’s letter to the District Judge, the conversation took place on July 15, 2026, while she was on leave.
The judge stated that the Commissioner initially asked about the duration of her leave and whether she intended to extend it. The conversation, according to the judge’s account, subsequently touched upon her conduct as a judicial officer and the pending case.
The judicial officer later alleged that IAS Nagpal had used her position to exert pressure on her, threatened to complain to the High Court and indicated that the case could be transferred.
The allegations were subsequently brought before the District Judge, Gonda.
Judge Sought Transfer of the Case
Following the alleged conversation, Judge Shabina Khan requested that the pending suit be transferred from her court.
The District Judge, Gonda, subsequently transferred the case to another court of equivalent jurisdiction in Gonda.
The transfer took place before the High Court could decide the school’s separate transfer application.
As the relief sought by the school had already effectively been granted by the District Judge, the High Court held that the transfer application before it had lost its efficacy.
However, the Bench made it clear that the allegations concerning the telephone conversation were a separate issue and could not simply be ignored.
High Court: Alleged Conversation Prima Facie Shows Attempt to Influence Judge
While examining the circumstances, Justice Rizvi noted that the tone and language of the conversation as described by the judicial officer gave a direct impression that an attempt had been made to influence her in her capacity as the presiding officer.
The Bench also expressed surprise at the manner in which a litigating party could approach a court through a telephone call in connection with a pending matter.
The Court observed that subordinate courts must be protected from being insulted or pressurised, and judicial officers must have the freedom and independence to discharge their duties fearlessly.
The Bench emphasised that any attempt by a person, litigant or advocate to pressurise a court can obstruct the administration of justice.
Commissioner Did Not Deny Making the Call
Another significant aspect noted by the High Court was that Ms Nagpal did not deny making the telephone call.
However, the Commissioner presented a different account of the circumstances and purpose of the conversation.
According to Nagpal’s version, she had taken charge of Devipatan Mandal in April 2026 and subsequently came to know that a dispute concerning government land had remained pending before the Gonda civil court for around three decades.
She stated that the land was Nazul land intended for construction of the Commissioner’s office and other government purposes.
Nagpal said she had directed the concerned officials and government counsel to pursue the matter effectively and ascertain the next date of hearing.
Commissioner’s Version of the Conversation
According to the Commissioner’s version placed before the High Court, she called Judge Khan after learning that the judicial officer was on extended leave.
Ms Nagpal stated that the purpose of the call was to ask how long the judge would remain on leave and whether the leave would be extended.
She maintained that the pending case itself was not discussed during the telephone conversation.
The Commissioner further stated that she subsequently contacted the District Judge and requested that the case be disposed of expeditiously.
Thus, the two versions of the conversation differ significantly, with the judicial officer alleging pressure and intimidation, while the Commissioner maintained that the call was related to the judge’s leave and administrative concerns.
What Did Judge Shabina Khan Allege?
In her communication to the District Judge, Judge Khan alleged that the Commissioner questioned her for not taking her call and referred to her seniority as an IAS officer.
The judicial officer further alleged that the Commissioner threatened to complain to the High Court and indicated that she could have the case transferred.
The letter also alleged that comments were made questioning the judge’s conduct as a judicial officer.
Judge Khan described the interaction as an attempt to use the Commissioner’s official position to intimidate her and exert undue pressure.
She consequently sought transfer of the case in the interest of ensuring a fair and impartial judicial process.
High Court Refers Matter for Criminal Contempt Consideration
After examining the material placed before it, the High Court concluded that the matter warranted consideration under criminal contempt.
The Bench relied upon a Supreme Court precedent concerning threats or pressure exerted against judicial officers in relation to judicial proceedings.
Justice Rizvi directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate court dealing with contempt matters after obtaining directions from the Chief Justice or the senior-most judge.
The Court’s order effectively separates two issues: the original request to transfer the civil suit, which had already been addressed by the District Judge, and the alleged conduct of the Commissioner, which the High Court considered serious enough for contempt consideration.
Court Stresses Independence of Subordinate Judiciary
The High Court’s observations strongly emphasised the importance of protecting subordinate judicial officers from external pressure.
The Bench said judicial officers must be able to discharge their duties freely, independently and without fear.
The Court also made clear that judicial proceedings cannot be influenced through direct approaches to judges by parties or officials involved in a dispute.
The observations are particularly significant because the alleged interaction involved a senior executive officer and a judicial officer dealing with a matter involving government land.
The Case: Jyoti Vidya Mandir vs Nagar Palika Parishad, Gonda
The proceedings arise from the case titled Jyoti Vidya Mandir Anandpuri Chhawni Sarkar through Manager Dayanand Mishra vs Nagar Palika Parishad, Gonda through its President and Others.
The suit dates back to 1997 and concerns the disputed Nazul land.
The case had reached the evidence stage, with the litigation continuing for nearly 30 years.
The High Court was considering the school’s application seeking transfer of the case, but the District Judge had already moved the matter to another competent court in Gonda following the judicial officer’s request.
What Happens Next?
The immediate transfer issue has effectively been resolved because the suit has already been moved to another court of equivalent jurisdiction in Gonda.
The separate issue concerning the alleged telephone conversation will now move towards consideration by the appropriate criminal contempt court, subject to directions from the Chief Justice or senior-most judge.
The High Court has not, at this stage, recorded a final finding that Durga Shakti Nagpal committed contempt. Its observations are based on a prima facie assessment of the allegations and material before it.
The matter will therefore be examined further in the appropriate proceedings.
Who Is IAS Durga Shakti Nagpal?
Durga Shakti Nagpal is a senior IAS officer of the Uttar Pradesh cadre and is currently serving as Divisional Commissioner, Devipatan Mandal, headquartered at Gonda.
Her latest assignment has placed her at the centre of a judicial controversy after a Gonda civil judge alleged that the Commissioner attempted to exert pressure through a telephone conversation concerning a pending case.
The Allahabad High Court’s decision to refer the matter for criminal contempt consideration has brought renewed attention to the relationship between the executive and subordinate judiciary.
For now, the central issue before the appropriate contempt forum will be whether the alleged conduct amounted to interference with the administration of justice.
Read Also: UP, Japan Deepen Green Hydrogen Partnership at Lucknow Investment Meet 2026
