Allahabad High Court

MUSHTAQ ALIversusSRI SATYENDRA KUMAR AND 5 OTHERS

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

Holding

The demolition did not constitute contempt of court and the contempt application was dismissed.

Summary

Mushtaq Ali filed a writ petition seeking protection of his house from demolition in connection with a road‑widening project, relying on a prior order that compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 must be paid before any acquisition. The High Court disposed of the writ, directing that the State acquire title either by mutual consent or by acquisition under the Act. Subsequently, the Municipal Commissioner of Nagar Nigam Varanasi issued a demolition notice under Section 331(1)(2) of the U.P. Nagar Nigam Adhiniyam, 1959, and demolished the house. The applicant filed a contempt application alleging violation of the earlier writ order. The Court held that the Nagar Nigam was not a party to the writ, no interim order restrained it, and therefore the demolition did not amount to contempt. The contempt application was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the demolition of the applicant's house by Nagar Nigam Varanasi constitutes contempt of the earlier writ order.
Whether Nagar Nigam, not being a party to the writ, is bound by the writ's directions regarding compensation and acquisition.
Whether the notice issued under Section 331(1)(2) of the U.P. Nagar Nigam Adhiniyam, 1959, can be executed without a court order for compensation.

Legislation cited

Subjects

contempt of court
writ petition
land acquisition
compensation
demolition
municipal authority
Section 331
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act
jurisdiction
party status

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1159 of 2026

Mushtaq Ali
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

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

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

1. An affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the opposite party no. 4
which is taken on record. The personal affidavit filed on behalf of the
opposite party no. 1 is also taken on record.

2. The applicant before this Court had filed Writ-C No. 41227 of 2025
which was disposed of on 01.12.2025 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 N.K. Panday,
learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners apprises the Court that the
controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgement 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 while passing the order dated 21.05.2025 in Writ-C
No.16448 of 2025 (Rahul Arora and others vs. State of U.P. and others).

3. For ready reference, the 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-
CAPL No. 1159 of 2026
2

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
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.
CAPL No. 1159 of 2026
3

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

4. So far as factual and legal aspect is concerned, the same could not be
disputed by learned Standing Counsel.

5. 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.

6. The present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as have been
given in Shahnawaz Khan (Supra). ."

3. The present contempt application has been filed on the ground that the
Nagar Nigam Varanasi had issued a demolition notice under Section
331(1)(2) on 31.01.2026 and thereafter, proceeded to demolish the house
of the applicant.

4. 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
Section 331(1)(2) of the U.P. Nagar Nigam Adhiniyam, 1959.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that despite the order of
the writ Court passed on 01.12.2025, 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.
CAPL No. 1159 of 2026
4

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. However, learned Additional Advocate General has fairly stated that, in
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.

10. 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…