Allahabad High Court
NIHALUDDINversusSRI SATYENDRA KUMAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VARANASI 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 petitioners, tenants of shops in Dalmandi, Varanasi, sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the District Magistrate and other officials from demolishing their premises for a road‑widening project without following lawful acquisition procedures. The High Court earlier disposed of the writ, reiterating that any acquisition must be through voluntary transfer or compulsory acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, as affirmed in Shahnawaz Khan v. State of U.P. In the present contempt application, the opposite party produced a sale deed showing that the owners had already transferred the land to the Public Works Department and no demolition had occurred. The Court held that, given the lawful sale and absence of any demolition, no contempt of its earlier order was established. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed and the contempt notice discharged.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents committed contempt by allegedly threatening demolition of the petitioners' premises without acquiring the land as per law
- Whether the sale deed executed in favour of the Public Works Department satisfies the requirement of lawful acquisition under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act
Legislation cited
Subjects
- contempt
- writ of mandamus
- land acquisition
- compensation
- road widening
- tenancy
- sale deed
- public works department
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2192 of 2026
Nihaluddin
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Sri Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate Varanasi
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. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicant today is taken on record.
2. The writ Court on 12.9.2025 while disposing of Writ-C No. 31841 of
2025 had passed the following order;
"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
CAPL No. 2192 of 2026
2
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. 2192 of 2026
3
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.
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-42/106, 107, 108, Chahmma,
Ghugrani Gali, Dalmandi, Varanasi was jointly owned by Mohd. Sakib
and Mohd. Mudasir and they being owner of property executed a sale-
deed in favour of Public Works Department, Varanasi on 10.2.2026 and
sale consideration of Rs. 90,35,516/- has been paid to them, copy of the
sale-deed has been appended as annexure No. 2 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…