Allahabad High Court
MOHAMMAD SALEEMversusSRI. SATYENDRA KUMAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VARANASI AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
No contempt lies as the Nagar Nigam was not a party to the writ proceedings.
Summary
The applicant, Mohammad Saleem, filed a contempt application challenging demolition notices issued by the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi, alleging violation of a prior writ order that restrained demolition without acquisition or compensation. The High Court noted that the Nagar Nigam was not a party to the earlier writ petition (Writ‑C No. 15201 of 2025) and that only the District Magistrate and State respondents were. Consequently, the court held that no contempt could arise from actions of a non‑party. The court therefore dismissed the contempt application, reaffirming that any demolition must follow the due process outlined in the earlier order, which required acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, or mutual consent.
Issues considered
- Whether the Nagar Nigam, not being a party to the earlier writ petition, can be held in contempt for issuing demolition notices.
- Whether the prior writ order restraining demolition without acquisition remains enforceable against actions of a non‑party.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- contempt
- writ of mandamus
- land acquisition
- demolition
- municipal authority
- procedural law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1445 of 2026
Mohammad Saleem
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate Varanasi
And 5 Others .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aftab Alam, Quazi Mohammad
Akaram, Ziauddin Farooqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bipin Bihari Pandey
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Personal affidavit filed by opposite party no. 1 today is taken on record.
2. The writ Court on 20.5.2025 while disposing of Writ-C No. 15201 of
2025 had passed the following order;
"1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ali
Jamal Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi,
learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Rajeev Singh,
learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the
respondents from demolishing their construction without acquiring the
same in accordance with law. The case of the petitioners is that they are
owner of House no. C1/23 Nai Sarak Sheikh Saleem Pathak, District-
Varanasi. The said house is situated in Dalmandi, Varanasi. The name of
the petitioners is duly mutated in the municipal records. The State
respondents are intending to demolish the construction of the petitioners
and also dispossess them without any acquisition or payment of
compensation.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the controversy
involved herein is covered by order dated 20.5.2025 passed today in
connected Writ C No. 12319 of 2025 (Shahnawaz Khan vs. State of U.P.
and Others).
CAPL No. 1445 of 2026
2
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/??-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
CAPL No. 1445 of 2026
3
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."
8. Having regard to the aforesaid, we dispose of the instant petition in
same terms."
3. Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Nagar Nigam,
states that Nagar Nigam Varanasi was not arrayed as a party in writ
petition and only notices have been issued by Nagar Nigam for
demolishing the structure in question and no reply to the said notice has
been filed till date.
4. As Nagar Nigam was not arrayed as a party in writ proceedings, no
case for contempt is made out. Contempt application stands dismissed.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Shekhar
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…