Allahabad High Court
DEEPAK AGRAWALversusSRI. SATYENDRA KUMAR AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The Court held that no contempt had been committed and dismissed the contempt application.
Summary
The applicant, Deepak Agrawal, was a tenant in a writ petition (Writ‑C No. 31841 of 2025) seeking a mandamus to stop demolition of his shop for a road‑widening project. The High Court had ordered that any acquisition must be through voluntary transfer or compulsory acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The opposite party later filed an affidavit showing that the owners had executed a sale deed in favour of the Public Works Department on 17 January 2026 and that no demolition had taken place. The applicant filed a contempt application alleging breach of the earlier order. The Court examined the affidavit, noted that the acquisition complied with the statutory procedure, and held that no contempt had occurred. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed and the contempt notice discharged.
Issues considered
- Whether the State authorities committed contempt of the High Court’s order by proceeding with demolition or acquisition without following the prescribed procedure.
- Whether the execution of a sale deed to the Public Works Department satisfies the requirement of acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- contempt
- land acquisition
- road widening
- tenancy
- mandamus
- compensation
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2190 of 2026
Deepak Agrawal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Sri. Satyendra Kumar And 5 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akanksha Srivastava, Arshi Begum,
Quazi Mohammad Akaram
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Applicant before this Court was one of the party in Writ-C No. 31841
of 2025 which was disposed of by writ Court on 12.9.2025 and following
order was passed;
"1. The petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the
respondents from dispossessing them from their shops under the tenancy
without adopting the procedure prescribed by law.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they are tenants of different buildings
situated in Dalmandi, Varanasi. The respondents are undertaking
widening of the road in the said market and they have marked part of their
property with red colour and are threatening to demolish the premises in
their tenancy, without paying any compensation and also without
initiating any acquisition proceedings so far.
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. 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
CAPL No. 2190 of 2026
2
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.
7. Keeping in mind the aforesaid stand, the writ petition stands disposed
CAPL No. 2190 of 2026
3
of in terms of the same."
5. Having regard to the aforesaid, we dispose of the instant petition in
same terms.
6. It is clarified that the instant order would not be treated to be
expression of any opinion by this Court regarding the petitioner's being
lawful occupants/tenants of the premises in case there is any dispute
between the petitioners and the landlords, or actual owners of the
property."
2. In paragraph no. 10 of personal affidavit filed by the opposite party no.
1 it has been stated that the House no. CK-43/167-167A-170 Govindpura
Halka Chowk, Varanasi was jointly owned by Mohisina Sheikh, Abdul
Rashid Sheikh and Noorafsa Parveen and they being owner of property
executed a sale-deed in favour of Public Works Department, Varanasi on
17.1.2026 and sale consideration of Rs. 1,11,71,620/- has been paid to
them, copy of the sale-deeds have been appended as annexure Nos. 2 and
3 to the personal affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi.
3. As the writ Court in case of Shahnawaz Khan (Supra) had held that
the property in question could only be acquired by the State through
voluntarily transfer or by compulsory acquisition or any other mode
recognized under law. In the instant case no demolition has been carried
out by the State authorities and owners of the property had already
executed a sale-deed in favour of Public Works Department, Varanasi, no
case for contempt is made out.
4. Contempt application stands dismissed. Contempt notice stands
discharged.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Shekhar
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…