Allahabad High Court

SHAHBAZ ALAMversusSRI SATYENDRA KUMAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND 5 OTHERS

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

Holding

The demolition does not amount to contempt; the contempt application is dismissed.

Summary

Shahbaz Alam filed a contempt application alleging that the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi demolished his house in violation of a July 2025 writ order which required any acquisition for road widening to be effected only through mutual consent or compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The demolition was carried out under a notice issued on 31.01.2026 pursuant to Section 331(1)(2) of the U.P. Nagar Nigam Adhiniyam, 1959. The court noted that the Nagar Nigam was not a party to the earlier writ and that no interim order restraining demolition had been obtained or challenged. It further observed that the house was dilapidated and the statutory notice period had elapsed. Consequently, the court held that there was no basis for a contempt finding and dismissed the contempt application.

Issues considered

Whether the demolition of the applicant's house by the Nagar Nigam constitutes contempt of the earlier writ order.
Whether the earlier writ order binds the Nagar Nigam despite its non‑party status.
Whether the absence of an interim injunction or a challenge to the demolition notice precludes a contempt claim.

Legislation cited

Subjects

contempt
demolition
land acquisition
compensation
writ petition
interim injunction
municipal authority
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act
U.P. Nagar Nigam Adhiniyam

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1162 of 2026

Shahbaz Alam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akanksha Srivastava, Quazi
Mohammad Akaram, Ziauddin
Farooqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

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

1. The personal affidavit filed today on behalf of the opposite party no. 1
is also taken on record.

2. The applicant before this Court had filed Writ-C No. 18221 of 2025
which was disposed of on 08.07.2025 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 Sri Q.M. Akaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents.

2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of a Government Order dated
31.03.2025 by which certain amount was sanctioned by the State
Government for widening and beautification of six roads in District
Varanasi. The case of the petitioner is that mother of the petitioner
namely Fahmida Khanam is owner of Shop as well as House No.
CK69/29 and CK69/29A, Resham Katra, Chowk, Varanasi. The case of
the petitioner is that the respondents in pursuance of Government Order
dated 31.03.2025 are threatening to demolish his constructions without
acquiring his property/rights as per provisions of law.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the controversy
CAPL No. 1162 of 2026
2

involved herein is covered by order dated 20.5.2025 passed in Writ C No.
12319 of 2025 (Shahnawaz Khan vs. State of U.P. and Others).

4. The operative part of the said order is extracted below:-

"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/F-
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.
CAPL No. 1162 of 2026
3

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. Having regard to the aforesaid, we dispose of the instant petition in
same terms. "

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 08.07.2025, 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. 1162 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…