Allahabad High Court
SHOBHAWATI AND ANOTHERversusMOHD AMAAN AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKAS BUDHWAR
Holding
The court held that the 2026 incident does not constitute contempt of the 2018 order and consigned the contempt application to the record.
Summary
The applicant filed a contempt application alleging willful defiance of a 20 April 2018 order that directed the respondents to hand over vacant possession of allotted land. The applicant claimed that although possession was initially handed over in 2018, the respondents demolished the boundary wall and dispossessed the applicant on 26 August 2026. The court examined whether the 2026 demolition and dispossession amounted to contempt of the earlier order. It held that the alleged acts constitute a fresh cause of action, not contempt of the 2018 order. Consequently, the contempt application was consigned to the record, allowing the applicant to pursue appropriate legal remedies for the 2026 incident.
Issues considered
- Whether the demolition of the boundary wall and dispossession in 2026 amounts to contempt of the 2018 order directing possession.
- Whether a fresh cause of action can be entertained under a contempt proceeding.
Subjects
- contempt
- willful defiance
- possession
- demolition
- fresh cause of action
- High Court
- Writ order compliance
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6936 of 2026
Shobhawati And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Mohd Amaan And 4 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Maurya, Ram Raj
Prajapati
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. The present contempt application has been preferred alleging willful
defiance of the order dated 20.04.2018 passed in Writ-C No. 9202 of 2018,
order whereof is quoted hereinunder.-
"In response to the order passed by this Court, supplementary affidavit
has been filed, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that from the perusal of the report submitted by Deputy
Collector, Tehsil Badlapur, Distt. Jaunpur, which is based on the report
of Lekhpal accepted by the Tehsildar it appears that the house of Smt.
Shobhawati wife of Parasnath (first petitioner) has been shown west side
in plot no.888 and the above pucca house has been shown to be
constructed prior to thirty two years and in the same way the pucca house
of the second petitioner has been shown east side and the same has been
constructed nearly about five years ago. While submitting report the
Lekhpal has also observed that the possession had also been handed over
to the petitioners in response to the allotment, which was settled way back
in the year 2012.
The said report has been disputed by the petitioner that at no point of
time the petitioners were put on possession over the site, which has been
allotted to the petitioners, whereas the construction as has been shown is
ancestral construction and still the respondents have not given the
possession to the petitioners. It appears that valid allotment has been
made in favour of the petitioners, which was duly approved by the
respondents for the housing purpose in the year 2012 and twice the
petitioners have approached this Court.
In such situation, the Court is of the prima facie opinion that the
grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed properly by the
respondents. As such, it is incumbent upon the Sub Divisional Magistrate
concerned to forthwith visit the site himself along with revenue officials
and ensure that on or before the next date fixed before this Court, vacant
possession of the site, which has been allotted to the petitioners may be
handed over to them, in case there is no other impediment.
Put up this matter on 09.05.2018.
Let a copy of this order be given to Shri Pankaj Rai, learned Addl. Chief
Standing Counsel free of cost for necessary compliance."
CAPL No. 6936 of 2026
2
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that despite the fact that
the applicant was handed over the possession in terms of the order of the
writ court, however, after a period of approximately eight years, i.e. on
26.08.2026, the opposite party nos. 3 to 5, who happened to be opposite
party nos. 5 to 7 of the writ petition, in collusion with the opposite party nos.
1 and 2 in the contempt application, had demolished the boundary wall and
dispossessed him.
3. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant as
to what is the contempt, he submits that though the possession was handed
over in the year 2018, but now a fresh cause of action has arisen in the year
2026, wherein constructions were demolished and he has been dispossessed.
So far as the fresh cause of action as alleged to have arisen in the year 2026
is concerned, the applicant would take appropriate remedy as permissible
and advisable under law.
4. In view of the same, the contempt application is consigned to record
leaving it open to the applicant to take appropriate legal remedy in that
regard.
October 1, 2026
Rajesh
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…