Allahabad High Court
MOHAMMAD TARIQ KHANversusSHRI SATYENDRA KUMAR POSTED AS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court held that no contempt exists because the respondent was not a party to the writ proceedings, and therefore the contempt application fails.
Summary
Mohammad Tariq Khan filed a contempt application against Shri Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate, alleging that the Nagar Nigam’s notice to demolish his house violated a prior writ order. The writ court, in Writ‑C No. 16448 of 2025, had held that any demolition for the Varanasi road‑widening project must follow the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, either by mutual consent or compulsory acquisition. The respondent argued that the Nagar Nigam was never a party to that writ proceeding and had merely issued a notice for demolition of a dilapidated house. The High Court examined whether the issuance of the notice amounted to contempt of its earlier order. Finding that no party status was conferred on the Nagar Nigam, the Court concluded that no contempt could be established. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Does the issuance of a demolition notice by an entity not party to the original writ petition constitute contempt of the High Court’s order?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- contempt
- writ petition
- land acquisition
- demolition notice
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013
- jurisdiction
- party status
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1497 of 2026
Mohammad Tariq Khan
.....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 21.5.2025 while disposing of Writ-C No. 16448 of
2025 had passed the following order;
"1. Heard Sri Q.M. Akaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents.
2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of a Government Order dated
31.03.2025 by which certain amount was sanctioned by the State
Government for widening and beautification of six roads in District
Varanasi. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 2 is owner
of House No. CK43/113-A, Govindpura, Kalan, Dalmandi, Varanasi,
petitioners no. 3 and 4 claim to be owner of House No. CK43/114
Dalmandi, Varanasi and petitioners no. 1 & 5 claim to be tenants of
House Nos. CK39/74-76, Raja Katra, Dalmandi, Varanasi and CK43/121,
Mohalla Govindpura Kalan, Dalmandi Road, District Varanasi. The case
of the petitioners is that the respondents in pursuance of Government
Order dated 31.03.2025 are threatening to demolish their constructions
without acquiring their property/rights as per provisions of law.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the controversy
involved herein is covered by order dated 20.5.2025 passed in Writ C No.
CAPL No. 1497 of 2026
2
12319 of 2025 (Shahnawaz Khan vs. State of U.P. and Others).
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.
CAPL No. 1497 of 2026
3
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.
7. Keeping in mind the aforesaid stand, the writ petition stands disposed
of in terms of the same."
5. 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
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…