Allahabad High Court

SAMEERversusSRI SATYENDRA KUMAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

Holding

No case for contempt is made out; the contempt application is dismissed.

Summary

The applicant, Sameer, a tenant, filed a contempt application alleging that the State and the District Magistrate were proceeding to demolish his shop without complying with a prior Division Bench order. The earlier writ petitions (Writ C No. 12319/2025 and Writ C No. 31841/2025) had directed the State to either negotiate with the owners or initiate acquisition proceedings. The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, produced sale deeds showing that the property had been purchased from the owners on 12‑01‑2026 and 10‑02‑2026, making the State the owner. The Court observed that the owners had not approached the writ court and that the State’s purchase was a result of mutual negotiation, rendering the contempt claim untenable. Consequently, the Court held that no case for contempt existed and dismissed the application.

Issues considered

Whether the demolition of the tenant's shop without complying with the Division Bench order amounts to contempt of court.
Whether the State's purchase of the property via sale deed negates any contempt liability.
Whether the tenant can restrain demolition pending acquisition proceedings.

Subjects

contempt of court
writ petition
property acquisition
demolition
tenant rights
public works department
sale deed

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1287 of 2026

Sameer
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

Sri Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate And 2
Others .....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

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

1. The applicant, before this Court, along with other applicants had filed
Writ-C No. 40011 of 2025 which was disposed of on 24.11.2025 and
following order was passed:-

"1. Petitioner is aggrieved for dispossession and demolition of
construction in view of widening of road in Dal Mandi area of District
Varanasi. The residents of the area have approached this Court vide writ
petition being Writ C No. 12319 of 2025 (Shahnawaz Khan vs. State of
U.P. and 3 Others) which stood disposed of on 20.5.2025. It is submitted
that subsequently another petition being Writ C No. 31841 of 2025
(Mohammad Faheem And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) also
stood disposed of vide order dated 12.9.2025 in terms of order passed in
the case of Shahnawaz Khan (supra).
2. Learned Standing Counsel submits that this petition may also be
disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in Writ C No.
12319 of 2025 followed in the matter of Mohammad Faheem (supra) with
further rider expressed in paragraph 6 of the order.
3. In view of the above, this petition also stands disposed of in terms of
the observations made and directions issued in the matter of Shahnawaz
Khan (Supra) with a further rider/view expressed by this Court in
paragraph 6 of Writ C No. 31841 of 2025 (Mohammad Faheem and 4
Others vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others)."

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is tenant of the
accommodation in dispute and without complying the order of Division
Bench, opposite parties are proceeding to demolish the shop in question.
CAPL No. 1287 of 2026
2

3. Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
State submits that owner of Building No. CK43/142 namely Sri Mirza
Haroon, Sri Mohammad Sarwar Nooh, Smt. Sahiba Khan, Smt. Sahiba Ruhi
Khan, Smt. Ariba Zahira, Smt. Saman Khan and Smt. Sufia Khan had
executed a sale-deed in favour of Public Works Department on 12.01.2026
and 10.02.2026, copy of which has been collectively filed as annexure-4 to
personal affidavit filed by District Magistrate, Varanasi. According to him,
the owner of the said property is the State.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.

5. It is a contempt application on the behest of tenant. The writ Court in
Writ C No. 12319 of 2025 (Shahnawaz Khan vs. State of U.P. and 3
Others), decided on 20.05.2025, had held that the State can either negotiate
with the owner or proceed for acquisition proceeding.

6. In the instant case, State has proceeded to purchase the property on the
basis of mutual negotiation entered between the State and owner of the
property and the owner of the property never approached this Court either
before the writ Court or through contempt application.

7. No case for contempt is made out.

8. The contempt application is misconceived and stands dismissed.

May 6, 2026
(V. S. SINGH)
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…