Allahabad High Court
ALIMUN NISHAversusSRI SATYENDRA KUMAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The court held that no contempt had occurred as no demolition was carried out and therefore dismissed the contempt application.
Summary
The applicant, Alimun Nisha, filed a contempt application after the High Court, in Writ‑C No. 26542 of 2025, ordered that no demolition of her property could occur unless the procedure under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was followed. Subsequently, Nagar Nigam Varanasi issued a demolition notice on 23‑April‑2026, affixed it on 27‑April‑2026, and the applicant replied on 28‑April‑2026. No demolition was actually carried out. The court examined whether the issuance of the notice and the pending reply amounted to contempt of its earlier order. Finding that no demolition had taken place and that the municipal authority had not been a party to the earlier writ, the court dismissed the contempt application and directed Nagar Nigam Varanasi to consider the applicant’s reply and take a final decision within two weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order.
Issues considered
- Whether the issuance of a demolition notice and the pending reply constitute contempt of the High Court's earlier order prohibiting demolition without compliance with the 2013 Act.
- Whether Nagar Nigam Varanasi, not being a party to the earlier writ proceedings, can be held in contempt for actions taken after the order.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- contempt of court
- demolition notice
- municipal authority
- land acquisition
- Right to Fair Compensation Act
- writ of mandamus
- procedural compliance
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1222 of 2026
Alimun Nisha
.....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 writ Court in Writ-C No. 26542 of 2025 on 8.9.2025 had passed
the following order;
"1. Heard Ms. Ghazala Bano Quadri, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Shri Vineet Sankalp, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and Shri Rajiv
Gupta, learned counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the
respondents from demolishing their constructions or forcing them to sign
any agreement for parting with their property without following the
procedure prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013.
3. Learned standing counsel has placed on record the instructions received
from Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Work Department,
Varanasi, wherein, the stand taken is that certain land is required for
widening and beautification of the road but the land owners have not
given consent for sale/purchase of their land. The respondents would,
therefore, follow the procedure prescribed under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. It is also stated that at present, no demolition or
dispossession is being undertaken.
CAPL No. 1222 of 2026
2
4. In view of the aforesaid stand, the writ petition is disposed of by
providing that the respondents would not demolish any construction or
dispossess the petitioners except in accordance with law."
2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that Nagar Nigam Varanasi had
issued a demolition notice on 23.4.2026 which has been affixed on the
house of applicant on 27.4.2026 for which a reply has been submitted by
the applicant on 28.4.2026.
3. Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Nagar Nigam
Varanasi states that Nagar Nigam Varanasi was not impleaded as a party
during writ proceedings and only notice has been issued by Nagar Nigam.
He further submits that no demolition activity has been carried out till
date.
4. In view of the said fact, as no demolition has been carried out by the
State authorities and already a reply has been submitted by the applicant
on 28.4.2026 to the notice issued by Nagar Nigam Varanasi on 23.4.2026,
contempt application is disposed of requiring the Nagar Nigam Varanasi
to proceed with the reply submitted by the applicant on 28.4.2026 and
take a final call on the same, in accordance with law, within next two
weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Shekhar
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…