Allahabad High Court
MOHD DILSHAD HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERSversusSRI SURENDRA PRATAP SINGH
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKAS BUDHWAR
Holding
The court held that the alleged encroachment issue requires factual determination and does not constitute contempt, and therefore consigned the contempt application to the record.
Summary
The applicants, sons of the original writ petitioner, sought contempt relief alleging that the opposite party’s notice to remove encroachments on Gata No. 383 violated a stay order protecting their possession of Plot No. 382. The stay order dated 16‑04‑2025 restrained respondents from dispossessing the petitioner or demolishing his house on Plot No. 382. The court observed that the dispute over whether the alleged encroachment concerns Gata No. 382 or Gata No. 383 is a factual issue that must be resolved by the parties, not through contempt proceedings. Consequently, the court found no ground for contempt and consigned the application to the record, leaving the applicants free to pursue appropriate remedies under law. The contempt application was therefore not entertained.
Issues considered
- Whether the opposite party’s notice to remove encroachments on Gata No. 383 amounts to contempt of the stay order protecting Plot No. 382
- Whether the alleged encroachment pertains to Gata No. 382 or Gata No. 383, requiring factual determination
Subjects
- contempt
- stay order
- encroachment
- land dispute
- factual determination
- civil procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6093 of 2026
Mohd Dilshad Hussain And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Sri Surendra Pratap Singh
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. The present application has been preferred by the applicants who happen
to be the sons of the original writ petitioner in Writ-B No. 1400 of 2025 in
which on 16.04.2025 following order was passed.-
"Amongst others what is clear is that the petitioner is entitled to retain
possession of the land in dispute on which his house stands by virtue of
the decree dated 24.04.1979 passed by the learned District Judge, Bijnor
in Civil Appeal No. 247 of 1978 which prima facie has become final
between parties.
Issue notice.
Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 7 is accepted by Mr. Sanjay
Kumar Ray, learned Standing Counsel. He is granted two weeks time to
file a counter affidavit.
Steps to serve respondent no. 8 shall be taken by RPAD within three days.
List for admission on 02.05.2025 along with a report regarding service
together with the postal track attached. The office shall also put in a
report regarding status of pleadings.
Until further orders of this Court, the respondents are restrained from
dispossessing the petitioner or demolishing his house in Plot No. 382
situate in village Ajabnagar, Pargana Batapur, Tehsil Nageena, District
Bijnor.
Let this order be communicated to the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil
Nageena (now Dhampur), District Bijnor and the Tehsildar, Tehsil
Nageena (now Dhampur), District Bijnor through the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bijnor by the Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours."
2. Allegation of the learned counsel for the applicant is that though there
happens to be a stay order in favour of the original applicant and now the
applicants who are successors-in-interest who have stepped into the shoes of
the deceased with regard to restraining the opposite parties from
dispossessing them or demolishing the house in Plot No. 382 situate in
Village Ajabnagar, Pargana Batapur, Tehsil Nageena, District Bijnor,
however the opposite party has issued notice to the applicants to remove the
encroachments over Gata No. 383. Submission of the learned counsel for the
CAPL No. 6093 of 2026
2
applicant is that Gata No. 383 has been wrongly mentioned as the eviction is
being directed to be done from Gata No. 382.
3. In the opinion of the Court, the question whether Gata No. 382 is being
treated to be Gata No. 383 while alleging encroachment is a question which
needs factual determination. Once the applicants have themselves responded
to the said notice, then the remedy lies elsewhere and not in the present
contempt application.
4. Accordingly, the contempt application is consigned to record leaving it
open to the applicants to take remedies as permissible and advisable under
law.
September 8, 2026
Rajesh
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…