HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6126 of 2026 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jahar Singh (Kashyap) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chaman Lal And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) Sri Seepoo Giri .....Opposite Party(s) 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 2 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 CAPL No. 6126 of 2026 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad