NAFEES AHMADversusSRI. SATYENDRA KUMAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VARANASI AND 5 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
              CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1226 of 2026

Nafees Ahmad
                                                                    .....Applicant(s)
                                           Versus

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

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

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

1. The writ Court in Writ-C No. 39254 of 2025 on 12.11.2025 had passed
the following order;

     "1. Heard Mr. Quazi Mohammad Akaram, learned counsel for the
     petitioner and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General
     assisted by Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
     appearing for the State respondents.

     2. The instant writ petition has been preferred inter alia for the following
     reliefs:-

     "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari quashing the
     impugned Govt. Order dated 31.03.2025 and Order dated 30.07.2025
     issued      by   Joint   Secretary,    Uttar   Pradesh   Government,     U.P.
     Lucknow.(Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition).

     II. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus commanding
     the respondents not to proceed with any demolition of shops and
     structures of the petitioners and eviction without due process of law.

     III. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus commanding
     the respondents to frame a policy/scheme for tenants/shopkeepers in
     Daalmandi Market, for their safeguard and rehabilitation.
                                                          CAPL No. 1226 of 2026
                             2


3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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).

4. 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-
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.
                                                              CAPL No. 1226 of 2026
                                   3


     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 Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief 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. So far as factual and legal aspect, the same is not disputed by learned
     Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

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

2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that Nagar Nigam Varanasi had
issued a demolition notice on 17.4.2026 which has been replied by the
applicant on 18.4.2026.

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 18.4.2026 to the notice issued by Nagar Nigam Varanasi, contempt
application is disposed of requiring the Nagar Nigam Varanasi to proceed
                                                                                         CAPL No. 1226 of 2026
                                                                 4


                                    with the reply submitted by the applicant on 18.4.2026 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