Salik Ram Yadav vs Shri Ankith Shukla, Sub Divisional Magistrate Sarojni Nagar Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1406 of 2026

Salik Ram Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Shri Ankith Shukla, Sub Divisional Magistrate Sarojni Nagar Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mahesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶7

Court No. - 32

¶8

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

¶9

Heard Shri Gaurav Tripathi, holding brief of Sri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, counsel for the applicant and Sir Mohti Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶10

The applicant herein had filed the Writ-C No. 10133 of 2025 in which the following orders were passed:

¶11

"1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of the State-respondent nos.1 to 4 and Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh who appears on behalf of the Respondent nos.5 & 6.

¶12

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following prayers:-

¶13

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the Opposite parties to remove the boundary wall made by the Nagar Nigam on the land Gata No.1550 and 1551 situated at Village Haivatmau Mawaiya, Pargana-Bijnaur, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow, forthwith, in the interest of justice.

¶14

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties nos.2 and 5 to take appropriate action on the Representation dated 22.09.2025 made by the petitioner contained in Annexure Nos.1 and 2 respectively to this writ petition considering the Reports dated 01.09.2025 and 22.08.2025 submitted by the Revenue Authorities contained in Annexure Nos.2 and 3 respectively to this writ petition within a period as fixed by this Hon'ble

¶15

CAPL No. 1406 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

Court, in the interest of justice.

¶18

(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

¶19

(iv) Allow the writ petition with costs in favour of the petitioner."

¶20

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased half share of land of Gata Nos.1548, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1553 and 1554 situated in Village Haivatmau Mawaiya, Pargana-Bijnaur, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow, through a registered Sale Deed on 12.08.2013. The name of the petitioner has been recorded in the Revenue Record. A copy of the Khatauni has been filed in the writ petition. One year ago, Nagar Nigam had raised a boundary wall on land of the petitioner Gata Nos.1550 and 1551. The petitioner filed a Case under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code for demarcation bearing Case No.11923 of 2023 [Salik Ram Vs. Manohar Lal and others] in which a report was submitted on 10.10.2023 and on the basis thereof, the SDM, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, by an order dated 18.11.2023 has confirmed preliminary demarcation report. Despite such order of the SDM, the Nagar Nigam has not removed boundary wall from the land of the petitioner. The petitioner has made repeated applications on Tehsil Diwas to the Prabhari Adhikari and also to the other Revenue Authorities. One Revenue Inspector submitted a report on 27.06.2024 that at the time of Medbandi, Nagar Nigam had given an assurance they will remove the boundary wall. Despite such Representations being made to various Authorities, no action has been taken. The petitioner filed Writ Petition bearing Writ-C No.6831 of 2025 [Salik Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others], this Court disposed of the writ petition on 22.07.2025 by recording the submission made by the counsel appearing for Nagar Nigam, Ms. Monika Yadav holding brief of Shri Namit Sharma that constructions have been made only on Gata No.1542 and not on the petitioner's land.

¶21

4. After this order was passed, the petitioner again made a complaint in IGRS and a report was called for. The SDM Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow, has submitted a report that boundary wall has been constructed by Nagar Nigam on petitioner's land which ought to be removed.

¶22

5. The Counsel appearing for the Nagar Nigam on the basis of instructions says that the boundary wall of Nagar Nigam is very old and has been constructed on land which belongs to Nagar Nigam and not to the petitioner. He has also stated that during demarcation exercise

¶23

CAPL No. 1406 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

allegedly carried out by the Revenue Authorities, the Nagar Nigam officials were not contacted and they were not present. The order of demarcation has been filed behind the back of Nagar Nigam, Lucknow.

¶26

6. It is not disputed that Nagar Nigam has not challenged the order passed under Section 24 by the SDM Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow.

¶27

7. Since there is an order of demarcation confirming the report of the Tehsildar, such order be complied with and necessary boundary marks be erected by the Revenue Authorities in pursuance of such order as such order has not been challenged by the Nagar Nigam by taking appropriate legal remedy against it.

¶28

8. We also direct the SDM, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, to inform the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Lucknow, of the Date and Time on which such Medbandi / Boundary marks have to be erected so that some responsible officer from Nagar Nigam is sent to remain present during said Medbandi.

¶29

9. The writ petition stands finally disposed of."

¶30

Alleging non-compliance of the said order, the present contempt petition has been preferred in which on 13.04.2026, the following orders were passed:

¶31

" 1. Heard.

¶32

2. Issue notice.

¶33

3. Steps need not to be taken.

¶34

4. The aforesaid is for the reason that the copies of this petition have been provided to the State Counsel and the same would be provided to the opposite party No.1, officer of the State of U.P., through the Office of Chief Standing Counsel.

¶35

5. List/put up this case on 01.05.2026 within top 30 cases, on which date the opposite party No.1/contemnor shall show cause as to why the contempt proceedings shall not be initiated against him for violating the order of this Court dated 20.11.2025 passed in Writ-C No.10133/3025, failing which the opposite party No.1/contemnor shall appear in person.

¶36

6. The above mode/process has been adopted for the purposes of early disposal of the instant contempt application/petition."

¶37

Today Shri Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel has produced before

¶38

CAPL No. 1406 of 2026

¶39

4

¶40

this Court instructions dated 29.04.2026 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, according to which, the order in question on the strength whereof the entire claim stood staked by the applicant dated 18.11.2023 has been recalled after hearing the petitioner at the behest of Nagar Nigam by virtue of the order dated 04.04.2026. Submission is that now once the order dated 18.11.2023 stands recalled then on 04.04.2026 then the remedy lies elsewhere and thus it cannot be said that there happens to be wilful disobedience of the order so as to invoke the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶41

Confronted with the same, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that liberty be accorded to the applicant to question the said order before appropriate forum.

¶42

Accordingly the contempt application stands consigned to record.

¶43

Leaving it open the for the applicant to question the same before the appropriate forum.

¶44

A copy of the instructions be served upon the learned counsel for the applicant. The same be treated as part of the record and marked as Appendix-A.

¶45

May 1, 2026

¶46

Ashu

¶47

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶48

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Salik Ram Yadav v. Shri Ankith Shukla, Sub Divisional Magistrate Sarojni Nagar Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salik Ram Yadav v. Shri Ankith Shukla, Sub Divisional Magistrate Sarojni Nagar Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Qiyamuddin and Another vs Akbal Husain and 5 Others

Devendra Kumar vs Project Director and Another

Shiv Shankar Dubey vs Mr. Upendra Gupta, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Sultanpur and 3 Others

Ram Milan Singh Tomar and 2 Others vs Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and 2 Others

Ved Prakash Saroj and 12 Others vs Bhupendra Singh Distt. Basic Education Officer Pratapgarh

Smt. Kalawati vs Garima Bhargava, Tahsildar, Tahsil Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar