OBAID AHMADversusSRI. SATYENDRA KUMAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND 5 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1094 of 2026

Obaid Ahmad
                                                                   .....Applicant(s)
                                      Versus

Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate And 5
Others                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                            Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Quazi Mohammad Akaram, Shoar
                                Mohammad Khan, Ziauddin Farooqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

Court No. - 9
                 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. The applicant before this Court was one of the parties in Writ-C No.
43581 of 2025 which was disposed of on 11.12.2025 in terms of the
decision rendered in case of Shahnawaj Khan Vs. State of U.P. and
others (Writ-C No. 12319 of 2025) and following order was passed:

     "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Fuzail Ahmad
     Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

     2. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for the following
     reliefs:-

     " a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
     commanding-directing the respondents not to take any action against the
     petitioners in seeking to disposses the petitioners from their respective
     houses/buildings owned and possessed by them as detailed herein above
     and not to demolish the same without acquiring valid title Jover the same
     in accordance with the provisions of right to fair compensation and
     transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement act
     2013."

     3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners claim to be
     the owner of different property and the full description of the said has
     been provided in paragraph no.5, 7 and 8. Learned counsel next submits
     that the same dispute is already settled by the coordinate Bench vide
                                                          CAPL No. 1094 of 2026
                              2


judgment and order dated 20.05.2025 passed in Writ C No.12319 of 2025
(Shahnawaz Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others). The said order was
relied upon by the Division Bench of this Court while passing the order
dated 12.09.2025 in Writ C No.31841 of 2025 (Mohammad Faheem and 4
others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others).

4. For ready reference, operative portion of order dated 20.05.2025 is
quoted as under :-

"5. The District Magistrate, Varanasi has filed his affidavit on behalf of
the State-respondents. The stand taken therein is that the State-
Government is proposing to widen and strengthen Dal Mandi road. On
20.3.2025 a preliminary estimate was sent to the State Government for
the said purpose. The total estimated cost was Rs. 22059.46 lakhs.
Subsequently, a revised estimate was also submitted. The Public Works
Department made demarcation of the land/houses which would be
affected by widening under the proposed work. It is unequivocally stated
in the affidavit that the respondents would acquire title over the
land/building which would be affected by the proposed project on basis of
mutual consent or through acquisition under the provisions of the Act of
2013. The relevant assertions contained in this regard in paragraphs 13,
14 and 15 are extracted below:-

13-That, the widening and strengthening of the road in question will be
completed after the settling the dispute amicably either by purchasing the
land in question as provisions of the government order No.
2/2015/215/??-13-2015-20(48)/2011 dated 19.03.2015, with mutual
consent/agreement or as per the prescribed provisions under the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013. A
true copy of the government order dated 19/03/2015 is being filed
herewith and marked as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit.

14-That widening and strengthening of the road in question would be
completed after providing the compensation under the provisions of the
government order (supra), and if the land owner does not give his
consent, then the provisions of the Act of 2013 would be applied.

15-That at present, there is no demolition drive going on adjacent of the
                                                               CAPL No. 1094 of 2026
                                   3


     road side of the road in question for road widening, those land owners
     come in purview in the alignment of the road widening and strengthening
     of the road in question they must be dealt with under the due process of
     law and no one have deprive their legal rights.

     6. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by
     Sri Rajeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State
     submits that the respondents would not disturb the possession of the
     petitioner nor demolish his constructions unless title over the same is
     acquired through voluntary transfer or by compulsory acquisition or any
     other mode recognized under law.

     7. Keeping in mind the aforesaid stand, the writ petition stands disposed
     of in terms of the same."

     5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents
     fairly states that qua the owners, he has no objection and the instant writ
     petition on their behalf may be disposed of in terms of the judgement
     passed in the case of Shahnawaz Khan (supra).

     6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
     opinion that similar indulgence is liable to be accorded in the instant
     matter also. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of in
     the same terms as have been enumerated in the case of Shahnawaz Khan
     (supra)."

2. In para no. 11 of the affidavit to the contempt application, it has been
stated that the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam has issued a notice
on 31.01.2026, pursuant to which, the demolition activity was carried out
on 09.02.2026.

3. From the perusal of the array of parties of the writ petition filed by the
applicant, it is clear that the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam,
Varanasi was not a party and only the State of U.P. through Principal
Secretary, P.W.D., Public Works Department through Chief Engineer,
Varanasi Circle, Varanasi, the Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department, District Varanasi and District Magistrate, Varanasi were
arrayed as parties. The notice issued by the Nagar Nigam was under
                                                        CAPL No. 1094 of 2026
                               4


Section 331(1)(2) of the U.P. Nagar Nigam Adhiniyam, 1959.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that despite the order of
the writ Court passed on 11.12.2025, the Nagar Nigam has proceeded to
demolish the house of the applicant. According to him, it was binding
upon the Nagar Nigam before demolishing the same to have paid
compensation as directed by the writ Court or should have entered into an
agreement for mutual transfer through sale deed. According to him,
neither the sale deed has been executed by the applicant in favor of the
Nagar Nigam or State nor any compensation amount has been paid as per
the Act of 2013. He has relied upon the Government Order of the State
which requires that the compensation has to be paid for the land so
acquired.

5. Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General submits that
the house of the applicant has not been taken over by the State and the
land is lying vacant after the demolition activity has been carried out.

6. Shri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Nagar
Nigam submits that the Nagar Nigam was not a party in the writ petition
filed by the applicant and as the house was in a dilapidated condition, the
notice was issued. It was after the issuance of notice and the statutory
period having been elapsed, the demolition activity was carried out.
According to him, the said notice was never challenged before any Court
and there is no interim order operating against the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi
in respect of the demolition of the house which is in dilapidated condition.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the material, I
find that that the demolition activity has been carried out pursuant to the
notice dated 31.01.2026 issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar
Nigam. The said notice was never challenged before any Court nor there
is any interim order passed against the Nagar Nigam. According to the
State Counsel, the State has not taken possession over the land nor is
proceeding in the matter, nor was involved in the demolition activity. The
matter, according to the State Counsel, is between the applicant and the
Nagar Nigam.

8. However, learned Additional Advocate General has fairly stated that, in
                                                                                       CAPL No. 1094 of 2026
                                                                5


                                    case, the applicant approaches for the payment of compensation or is
                                    ready to execute the sale deed in favor of the State, the State would
                                    proceed in accordance with law.

                                    9. In view of the said fact, no case for contempt is made out. The
                                    contempt application stands dismissed.



                                                                               (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    A. V. Singh




Digitally signed by :-
AJAY VIKRAM SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad