Allahabad High Court
ZUL KARNAINversusSHRI SATYENDRA KUMAR POSTED AS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
No case for contempt exists as the Nagar Nigam was not a party to the writ petition, and the contempt application is dismissed.
Summary
The applicant, Zul Karnain, filed a contempt application against the District Magistrate and others, alleging that the Nagar Nigam Varanasi was violating a prior writ order by issuing a demolition notice for his dilapidated house. The High Court examined the earlier writ order dated 26.11.2025, which referenced judgments in Shahnawaz Khan v. State of U.P. and Rahul Arora v. State of U.P., and noted that the municipality was not a party to that writ proceeding. The court observed that the demolition notice was issued by the Nagar Nigam, which had not been joined as a respondent in the original writ petition. Consequently, the court held that no case of contempt could arise against an entity that was not a party to the earlier proceedings. The contempt application was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Nagar Nigam Varanasi can be held in contempt of court for issuing a demolition notice when it was not a party to the original writ petition.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- contempt of court
- writ petition
- land acquisition
- demolition notice
- municipal authority
- jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1494 of 2026
Zul Karnain
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Shri Satyendra Kumar Posted As District
Magistrate And 4 Others .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Khalid
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bipin Bihari Pandey
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Personal affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 1 today is taken on
record.
2. The writ Court on 26.11.2025 while disposing of Writ-C No. 41598 of
2025 had passed the following order;
"1. Heard Shri Ali Jamal Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
F.A. Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for a direction to
respondents not to demolish the construction of the petitioner without
acquiring his property.
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-
CAPL No. 1494 of 2026
2
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
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.
CAPL No. 1494 of 2026
3
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 is concerned, the same could not be
disputed by learned 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)."
3. Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Nagar Nigam
Varanasi states that Nagar Nigam Varanasi was not arrayed as a party in
writ proceedings and only a notice has been issued by Nagar Nigam for
demolishing the house in question as it is in a dilapidated condition. He
further submits that no reply has been filed to the notice issued by Nagar
Nigam.
4. From perusal of the order of writ Court as well as material on record, I
find that no case for contempt is made out as Nagar Nigam Varanasi was
not arrayed as a party in writ petition filed by the applicant.
5. 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…