Dismissed¶18

Hemant Yadav v. Shri Anupam Shukla, I.a.S., District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar and 12 Others

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2025CAPL/3000/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt application dismissed as infructuous; compliance affirmed with writ order dated 02.07.2025 in Writ-C No. 4409 of 2025 ('Hemant Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others') directing pathway use and soil filling between Gata No. 248 and 223 up to Gata No. 224 by Respondent No. 7; no writ direction extended to Gata No. 243; demarcation/boundary disputes requiring evidence held unexam-inable in contempt proceedings; compliance affidavit filed with spot memo and naksha nazari; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 8, Manish Kumar, J., 31.10.2025; CAPL 3000 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the contempt application was dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to the applicant to pursue other available legal remedies. ¶18

Hemant Yadav Vs Shri Anupam Shukla, I.a.S., District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar and 12 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the contempt application was dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to the applicant to pursue other available legal remedies.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order dated 02.07.2025 passed in Writ-C No.4409 of 2025 ('Hemant Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others') has been complied with, rendering the present contempt application infructuous. +2 more

¶9

Court's answer

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the Court found that the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court has been complied with.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

There was no direction in the writ judgment and order for taking up the pathway up till Gata No.243; the directed stretch lies between Gata No.248 and 223 and goes up till Gata No.224.

¶16

Key takeaways

Any dispute of demarcation/boundaries requiring leading of evidence could not be seen/examined in the present contempt proceedings.ratio¶16
The applicant was not disputing the existence of the pathway between Gata No.248 and 223 going up till Gata No.224.ratio¶16
If the applicant is still aggrieved, he may avail other remedies as available to him under the law.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 8 (Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.), Contempt Application (CIVIL) No. 3000 of 2025, decided 31 October 2025. Hemant Yadav sought contempt action for alleged non-compliance with the judgment and order dated 02.07.2025 in Writ-C No.4409 of 2025 ('Hemant Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others'), under which the land lying between Gata No. 248 and 223 and going up to Gata No. 224 was to continue as a pathway, Respondent No. 7 was to fill it with soil, and respondent nos. 8 to 14 were left free to institute proceedings for declaration of their rights. Learned counsel for the opposite parties (led by the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar) filed a compliance affidavit with the spot memo (refused to be signed by the applicant), the naksha nazari/spot inspection map and photographs of the soil filling. The applicant countered that the pathway stood closed between Gata Nos. 224 and 247 and soil work was incomplete up to Gata No. 243. The Court held that the writ order contained no direction extending the pathway up to Gata No. 243; a demarcation/boundary dispute requiring leading of evidence could not be examined in contempt proceedings; and the applicant himself was not disputing the existence of the pathway between Gata Nos. 248 and 223 up to Gata No. 224. Finding the writ judgment and order complied with, the Court dismissed the contempt application as infructuous, observing that a still-aggrieved applicant may avail other remedies available under the law.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3000 of 2025

Hemant Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Shri Anupam Shukla, I.A.S., District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar And 12 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vikas Pandey, O.P. Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Prabhakar Tiwari

¶6

Court No. - 8

¶7

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned counsel for State.

¶9

Present contempt petition has been preferred for alleged noncompliance judgment and order dated 02.07.2025 passed in Writ-C No.4409 of 2025; 'Hemant Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others'. The relevant extract of the same is quoted herein below:-

¶10

" 6. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, neither the petitioner nor the respondent nos. 8 to 14, as of now are claiming ownership rights over the land which is being used as a pathway. In view thereof, the present petition is disposed of with direction that the land in question shown in the Annexure No. 1 lying in between Gata No. 248 and 223 and going up to Gata No. 224 shall be continued to be used as pathway. Respondent No. 7 shall take steps for filling the same with soil, for the purpose of convenience of the villagers/residents, however, respondent nos. 8 to 14 would be at liberty to institute any proceedings for declaration of their rights, if so advised, as in the said suit the respondent no. 7 shall not take a defence that merely because they have done the work of soil refilling, the claim of the respondent nos. 8 to 14 cannot be considered. It is further clarified that this order shall have no effect on the rights of the petitioner over Gata No. 248 and 246 as owned by the respondent nos. 8 to 14."

¶11

Learned counsel for respondent has filed compliance affidavit today in Court which is taken on record and enclosing therein the spot memo which was refused to be signed by the applicant, the naksha nazari/spot inspection map and photographs of the filling of the soil as per the judgment and order passed in the writ petition. It is further submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court has been complied with

¶12

CAPL No. 3000 of 2025

¶13

¶14

and present contempt application has become infructuous and it liable to be dismissed as such.

¶15

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the land which has been shown pathway in the spot inspection map has been closed between Gata No.224 and 247 and soil work has not been done completely up till Gata No.243.

¶16

After hearing learned counsel parties and going through the record, it is found that there was no direction for taking up pathway up till Gata No.243 as per the judgment and order passed in the writ petition. It is between the Gata No.248 and 223 and going up till Gata No.224 and if there is any dispute of demarcation/boundries which requires leading of evidence, the same could not be seen in the present proceedings, particularly, when the applicant is not disputing the existence of pathway between Gata No.248 and 223 and going up till Gata No.224.

¶17

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court has been complied with. If the applicant is still aggrieved he may avail other remedies as available to him under the law.

¶18

Accordingly, the present contempt application is hereby dismissed as infructuous.

¶19

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶20

October 31, 2025

¶21

Arti/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ARTI MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hemant Yadav v. Shri Anupam Shukla, I.a.S., District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Yadav v. Shri Anupam Shukla, I.a.S., District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Khushi Ram and 8 Others Vs Sri Avinash Srivastava Distt. Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Ayodhya

Pankaj Kumar Vs Sri Devesh Chaturvedi, Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Agriculture Education/Research Lko. and Others

Smt.Aishwarya Mishra Vs Shri Anand Kumar Singh the Director Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar

Savitri Devi and Another Vs Ms. Nisha Anant, District Magistrate Amethi and Another

Shamim Ahmad Vs Bharat Ram, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Kunda Distt. Pratapgarh

Kharag Singh Mehra Vs Surya Pal Gangwar, D.M., Lko.