Allahabad High Court

RAM SHANKARversusSHRI MADAN GABARIYAL AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

Holding

The court held that the demolition was of a different plot than the one covered by the decree, so no contempt of court occurred and the contempt application was dismissed.

Summary

Ram Shankar filed a contempt proceeding under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, alleging that the Kanpur Development Authority demolished his property in violation of a decree in Civil Appeal No.116 of 2013 and without filing a special appeal. The factual dispute was whether demolition occurred at Plot No.333 (150 sq m, Village Parsauli), which was covered by the decree, or at Plot No.94 (1500 sq m, Village Taudhakpur), which the authority claimed was demolished. The High Court directed the District Magistrate to investigate and submit a report on the location of demolition. The District Magistrate’s report found that demolition was carried out at Plot No.94, not the plot subject to the decree. Consequently, the court held that no contempt of court had occurred, dismissed the contempt application, and discharged the contempt notice, while noting that the applicant could challenge the magistrate’s report in an appropriate forum.

Issues considered

Whether demolition of the property contrary to the decree in Civil Appeal No.116 of 2013 amounts to contempt of court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Whether the factual dispute about which plot was demolished can be resolved by the District Magistrate’s report, thereby negating contempt.
Whether the contempt application should be dismissed on the basis of the magistrate’s findings.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act — s. 10

Subjects

contempt of court
Section 10
demolition
civil appeal
district magistrate report
notice
order
special appeal

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4585 of 2025

Ram Shankar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

Shri Madan Gabariyal And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anand Prakash Paul

Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. This contempt proceeding has been initiated by the applicant under
Section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act stating that the suit filed by the
applicant was decreed in civil appeal filed by the applicant being Civil
Appeal no.116 of 2013 vide judgment dated 09.03.2017. The applicant
had alleged that the demolition activity has taken place despite the fact
that against the judgment rendered by the appellate Court, no special
appeal was preferred by the Kanpur Development Authority.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Kanpur Development Authority, on
03.09.2025, had placed before the Court the instructions so received by
him. According to him, the demolition activity has been carried out on
plot no.94 area, 1500 Sq.M. at Village Taudhakpur, Charaga, Kanpur
Nagar, which is adjacent to Village- Parsauli and no demolition activity
was carried out at Plot No.333, measuring 150 Sq.M. situated at Village-
Parsauli, Tehsil- Kanpur Nagar, as claimed by the applicant.

3. This Court, on 04.09.2025, had directed the District Magistrate, Kanpur
Nagar to submit his report within two weeks as to whether demolition
took place at Plot No.333, Village- Parsauli, Tehsil- Kanpur Nagar or Plot
No.94, and following order was passed:-

"1. Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for applicant and Sri A.P. Paul, learned counsel
for opposite parties.
3. Pursuant to the order dated 28.08.2025, Sri A.P. Paul has produced
CAPL No. 4585 of 2025
2

instruction dated 03.09.2025, which is taken on record. Based upon
instruction, he submitted that Appeal No. 116 of 2013 pertains to Plot No.
333 area 150 Sq. Mtr., Village- Parsauli, Tehsil-Kanpur Nagar whereas
demolition took place at Plot No. 94 area 1500 Sq. Mtr., village-
Taudhakpur, Charaga, Kanpur Nagar, which is adjacent to Village -
Parsauli. He also pointed out that before demolition, notice dated
20.09.2023 was issued, which was not replied, therefore, demolition
order dated 01.06.2024 has been passed and it was served upon the
applicant on 03.06.2024. Thereafter, opposite parties have proceeded to
demolish the disputed property at Village-Taudhakpur.
4. Learned counsel for applicant has invited attention of the Court to the
Commission report dated 03.07.2025 and submitted that demolition took
place at Plot No. 333 area 150 Sq. Mtr., Village- Parsauli, Tehsil-Kanpur
Nagar.
5. As the facts are disputed, therefore, District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar
is directed to submit report within two weeks as to whether demolition
took place at Plot No. 333, Village- Parsauli, Tehsil-Kanpur Nagar or
Plot No. 94. District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar is further directed that an
Officer not below the rank of Sub Divisional Magistrate shall be deputed
to prepare the report.
6. Put up this case as fresh on 18.09.2025.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to supply the copy of this
contempt application as well as supplementary affidavit to contempt
section during the course of the day.
8. On the next date fixed, Sri A.P. Paul is directed to produce the
photocopy of notice dated 20.09.2023 and order dated 01.06.2024
referred in instruction dated 03.09.2025.
9. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order along
with copy of contempt application as well as supplementary affidavit to
District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar within 24 hours. "

4. Today, when the case was taken up, learned Standing Counsel has
placed before the Court the instructions so received by him. According to
him, report of the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar dated 16.09.2025
clearly reveals that the demolition activity was carried out at Plot No.94,
measuring 1500 Sq.M. at Village Taudhakpur, Charaga, Kanpur
CAPL No. 4585 of 2025
3

Nagar and not at Plot No.333, measuring 150 Sq.M. situated at Village-
Parsauli, Tehsil- Kanpur Nagar.

5. As the report has been submitted by the District Magistrate, Kanpur
Nagar, no case for contempt is made out.

6. Contempt application stands dismissed. Contempt notice stands
discharged.

7. However, it is open to the applicant to challenge the report of the
District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar before appropriate forum, if so
advised.

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
May 14, 2026
SK Goswami

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…