Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5772 Court No. - 17 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 889 of 2023 Applicant :- Smt. Prabhawati Opposite Party :- Sri Santosh Kumar Ojha, Up Ziladhikari, Utraula, Balrampur Counsel for Applicant :- Udai Pratap Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Prabhakar Tiwari,Prabhakar Tiwari Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Heard. Present contempt petition has been preferred for alleged non compliance of the judgment and order of the Writ Court dated 18.10.2022 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 7279 of 2021. The relevant extract of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "Accordingly, this petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the Up Zila Adhikari, Utraula, District- Balrampur to ensure that the public path is clear from all encroachments. The Up Zila Adhikari, Utraula, District- Balrampur will accordingly take action/decision, of course, after hearing the respondent nos.5 to 11 as well. The appropriate action in this matter shall be taken by the Authority concerned within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. " Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that against the encroachment on the public path, an application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. was moved before the S.D.M. concerned, which was decided by order dated 01.10.2019, directing therein to remove the illegal encroachment from public path. When the encroachment was not removed then the applicant had filed the Public Interest Litigation No 7279 of 2021 before this Court, which has been decided by this Court vide its order dated 18.10.2022. The relevant extract of the said judgment has been quoted hereinabove. On the other hand, leaned counsel for the respondent has filed an affidavit of compliance stating therein that the encroachment on the public path has been removed and also enclosed the spot memo signed by some of the villagers. In reply thereto, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the authorities had only removed the encroachment from the public path/passage but the hut constructed on the parti land has yet not been removed. On being asked from learned counsel for the applicant that as to whether he has made any reference in the application made under Section 133 to remove the hut from the public path or not, he has replied that no such reference was made in the application and not aware of the fact as to whether the hut is on the parti land or on the public path but the hut has not been removed so the order of the writ court has yet not been complied with. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that it is an admitted case of the learned counsel for applicant also that encroachment from the public passage/path has been removed but he is not aware that hut is on the public path or parti land, thus, under these circumstances, the judgment and order of the Writ Court stands complied with and in case the applicant is still aggrieved , he may avail the remedy, as may be permissible under the law. In view of the above, the present case is dismissed. Notice issued, if any, stands discharged . Order Date :- 28.1.2025 Ashish Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench