Allahabad High Court
JAVED IQBALversusSHRI SATYENDRA KUMAR POSTED AS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The contempt application was dismissed as no case for contempt was made out because the alleged violators were not parties to the writ petition.
Summary
The applicant, Javed Iqbal, filed a contempt application against the District Magistrate of Varanasi and four others, alleging that they were threatening to force demolition of his properties and coercing him to sign agreements for land acquisition without following the procedures of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The High Court noted that the writ court had earlier directed the respondents to refrain from any coercive action and to follow due process. The applicant relied on earlier judgments (Shahnawaz Khan v. State of U.P. and Rahul Arora v. State of U.P.) which emphasized that acquisition must be by mutual consent or under the 2013 Act. The court observed that the municipal authority (Nagar Nigam Varanasi) issuing a demolition notice was not a party to the original writ petition and therefore could not be held in contempt. Consequently, the court found no basis for a contempt proceeding and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether the actions of the District Magistrate and other officials amount to contempt of court in the absence of a party relationship to the original writ petition.
- Whether the alleged threats to demolish property and force acquisition without following the 2013 Land Acquisition Act constitute contempt.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- contempt of court
- land acquisition
- mandamus
- Right to Fair Compensation Act
- procedural due process
- municipal authority
- demolition notice
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1516 of 2026
Javed Iqbal
.....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) :
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 2.9.2025 while disposing of Writ-C No. 30323 of
2025 had passed the following order;
"1. Heard Shri Mohammad Khalid, learned Counsel for the petitioners,
Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri
Suresh Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State
and Shri Vineet Sankalp, Advocate, representing the respondent No. 5.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :-
"A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to refrain from forcing the petitioners to remove, demolish or
execute to sign willful agreement to handing over their property Nos. CK-
40/50, CK-69/26, CK-43/186 situated in Mohalla Resham Katra,
Ghughrani Gali, Dalmandi, Varanasi to the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4
without adopting to lawful procedure as provided under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013.
B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and
commanding the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to pass appropriate order on the
application of the petitioners dated 18.5.2025.
CAPL No. 1516 of 2026
2
C. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and
commanding the respondents be restrained from threatening by visiting
the premises of the petitioners and forcing them to demolish their house
nos. CK-40/50, CK-69/26, CK-43/186 situated in Mohalla Resham Katra,
Ghughrani Gali, Dalmandi, Varanasi voluntarily and handover possession
to the respondent authorities."
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
CAPL No. 1516 of 2026
3
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."
16. 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 petitioners nor demolish their constructions unless title
over the same is acquired through voluntary transfer or by compulsory
acquisition or any other mode recognized under law.
17. 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)."
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
CAPL No. 1516 of 2026
4
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…