Allahabad High Court
CHAMAN LAL AND 3 OTHERSversusSRI SEEPOO GIRI
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKAS BUDHWAR
Holding
No contempt was committed as the alleged demolition did not violate the High Court’s order and the court should not adjudicate the merits of the underlying dispute.
Summary
The petitioners, Chaman Lal and three others, filed a contempt application alleging that the opposite parties demolished encroachments on 01‑04‑2026 in violation of the High Court’s order dated 06‑04‑2026, which had imposed a status‑quo and required the parties to be heard before any demolition. The petitioners claimed the demolition was undertaken before the reply deadline of 04‑04‑2026 and that the order mandated rehabilitation of weaker sections. The opposite parties contended that the notice was issued by the Irrigation Department, that only encroachments on the road or drain were removed, and that no house demolition occurred. The Court examined the order and observed that it did not require the Court to adjudicate the merits of ownership, only that affected parties be heard before any action. Concluding that the alleged demolition did not amount to a breach of the order and that contempt jurisdiction should not be used to decide the underlying merits, the Court held that no contempt had occurred and consigned the application to the record, leaving the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for any further relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the demolition carried out on 01‑04‑2026 constitutes contempt of the High Court’s order dated 06‑04‑2026.
- Whether the order’s directive to maintain status‑quo and hear the affected parties before demolition was breached.
- Whether the Court can entertain a contempt proceeding when the alleged breach pertains to the merits of the underlying land‑encroachment dispute.
Subjects
- civil contempt
- status quo
- demolition
- encroachment
- rehabilitation
- weaker sections
- scheduled caste
- municipal corporation
- public purpose
- road widening
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6126 of 2026
Chaman Lal And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Sri Seepoo Giri
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jahar Singh (Kashyap)
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. The present contempt petition has been preferred alleging non-compliance
of the order dated 06.04.2026 passed in Writ C No.13495 of 2026, the order
whereof is quoted hereinunder:
"1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Ram Anuj Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Gaurav Bishan, learned counsel for Municipal Corporation and Sri
Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents.
3. Soraj s/o Asharam Ram and 16 others have approached to this Court
for a direction commanding the respondents to stop and avoid the
demolition of the petitioners' house in pursuance to the notice dated
28.03.2026, which is initiated for widening of RCC road in left side from
Sugar Mill to Hasanpur road situated in left side of the Rajvaha canal
and cross to petitioners' village Lakkad Mazara and Kori Mazara.
Pargana, Tehsil and District Saharanpur.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the strength of averments made
in the writ petition, submits that the petitioners belong to weaker section
i.e. scheduled caste community. The various averments are appended
along with record to indicate that the petitioners are using the disputed
site for dwelling purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently
contended that before carrying out the demolition, it is duty of the
respondents to properly rehabilitate, in case, the petitioners do not have
land in their names.
5. Per contra, Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the
respondents vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that in
view of the details, as set up in the writ petition, it is admitted position
that the petitioners have illegal encroached over the land, as the road
CAPL No. 6126 of 2026
2
widening is for the public purpose and the authorities are carrying out
the expansion of the road strictly in accordance with law and notice had
also been served to all the petitioners. The objection has also been raised
with regard to filing the instant writ petition as a single petition. The writ
petition can be filed by the petitioners separately. Every petitioner is
having private cause of action and without independent examination of
right, title and claim over the property, no such relief can be accorded.
6. Similar objection has also been raised by the learned counsel, who
appears for Municipal Corporation, Saharanpur. He vehemently submits
that no such permission can be accorded to encroach upon the road side.
Moreover, the Authority has every right to initiate the proceedings under
the Act for removal of the encroachment over the public land.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances and objection so raised, it is
admitted position that the petitioners belong to economically weaker
section of the society. At this stage, we are not inclined to interfere with
the merit of the case whether the petitioners are rightful owners or not?
This aspect can be examined by the Competent Authority. However, we
observe that as the petitioners belong to economically weaker section, in
case, any such construction is carried out, definitely their version must be
taken into consideration and it is also expectd that rehabilitation of
weaker section of the society must be ensured by the respondent no. 4. It
is the duty to properly rehabilitate the weaker section of the society.
Endeavour is to be made for settling down the weaker section, who are
encroaching upon the road side, under any rehabilitation scheme in
accordance with law. Each and every person, who is affected, shall prefer
separate objection within four weeks and the same shall be decided within
three weeks thereafter.
8. Till disposal of the same, the parties shall maintain status-quo as on
today.
9. The instant writ petition stands disposed of."
2. Today instructions have been produced by Shri Gaurav Bisen dated
29.09.2026 which is taken on record.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that a notice came to be
issued on 28.03.2026 requiring the applicant to submit reply by 04.04.2026
but the demolition exercise was undertaken on 01.04.2026.
4. Shri Bisen has invited the attention of the Court towards page-26 so as to
contend that the notice came to be issued by the Irrigation Department and
not by the opposite party and further according to him, as per the instructions
only that encroachments have been removed which were on the road or
CAPL No. 6126 of 2026
3
covering the drain in that regard.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has invited attention of the Court
towards page-55 that a Committee stood constituted by the District
Magistrate, thus the opposite parties have committed contempt.
6. In the opinion of the Court, the order of the Court is clear, according to
which, the Court denuded itself while going into the merits of the matter
regarding expressing its view upon the title, however, that much was
provided that in case any exercise is undertaken then the affected parties be
heard in that regard. Photographs have also been produced showing that the
constructions relating to dwelling houses has not been demolished but only
encroachment has been demolished which was either upon the road or over
the drain.
7. Be that as it may be, this Court in contempt jurisdiction in view of the
order passed by the Court is not required to delve into the merits as remedy
lies elsewhere, definitely not contempt in that regard. Once it is the stand of
the opposite party that they have not conducted demolition of the house in
that regard.
8. Accordingly, the contempt application is consigned to record leaving it
open to the applicant to question the act and omissions of the opposite party
before appropriate forum.
September 30, 2026
Ashu
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…