Allahabad High Court

ATHAR EJAZ AND ANOTHERversusSRI. SATYENDRA KUMAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND 5 OTHERS

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

Holding

The contempt application was dismissed because there was no evidence of wilful disobedience of the writ order.

Summary

Athar Ejaz and others filed a contempt application alleging that the authorities were demolishing their shops in violation of a writ order that required acquisition of land only through mutual consent or under the Right to Fair Compensation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The respondents filed affidavits stating that no eviction or demolition had been undertaken and that the petitioners had not produced ownership documents. The Court held that contempt requires proof of wilful disobedience of a judicial order, which was absent, and that the Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. U.N. Bora v. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association, the Court emphasized the need for knowledge and intentionality for civil contempt. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed as misconceived.

Issues considered

Whether the filing of a contempt petition is maintainable on the basis of mere apprehension of non‑compliance with a writ order
Whether the authorities wilfully disobeyed the writ order by demolishing the petitioners' shops
Whether the Court may conduct a roving inquiry to ascertain facts in a contempt proceeding
Whether the requirements of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, including proof beyond reasonable doubt of wilful disobedience, have been satisfied

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — s. 12
Right to Fair Compensation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Subjects

civil contempt
wilful disobedience
Section 12
land acquisition
Right to Fair Compensation and Resettlement Act 2013
demolition
affidavit
court of execution
proof beyond reasonable doubt

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2208 of 2026

Athar Ejaz And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate And 5
Others .....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akanksha Srivastava, Jay Shree
Tripathi, Quazi Mohammad Akaram
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 4, Nagar
Nigam, Varanasi, which is taken on record.

2. The applicant, before this Court, had approached the writ Court through
Writ-C No. 36482 of 2025 which was disposed of on 27.10.2025 and
following order was passed:-

"1. Heard Mr. Quazi Mohammad Akaram,, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash
the impugned Government Order dated 31.03.2025 and order dated
30.07.2025 issued by Joint Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Government, U.P. at
Lucknow. It is further prayed to command the respondents to grant fair
compensation, rehabilitation and relocation to the petitioners and
similarly placed tenants/shopkeepers under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Resettlement Act 2013 (in short the 'Act 2013') and
also not to demolish the shops and structures of the petitioners, without
due process of law.
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
CAPL No. 2208 of 2026
2

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
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
CAPL No. 2208 of 2026
3

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. 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. A personal affidavit of District Magistrate, Varanasi has been filed
wherein in paragraph no. 10, it has been stated that till date no action for
eviction or demolition has been taken by the authorities against the applicant
in respect of Shop No. CK-67/5, 6, 7, 8, Dalmandi, District-Varanasi. It has
further been stated that applicants were never threatened to vacate their shop.
Further, it has been stated that the applicants have not submitted any
document establishing their ownership over the property.

4. Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned counsel states that Nagar Nigam,
Varanasi is not a party in the writ petition filed by the applicant but the
Municipal Commissioner has been arrayed as opposite party in contempt
proceeding.

4. Once affidavit has been filed by district authorities stating that they are
not proceeding with eviction proceeding, no case for contempt is made out.

5. This Court is a 'court of execution' and not a 'court of adjudication'.
Contempt is not maintainable merely on apprehension. The party has to
establish that the order of writ Court has been willfully disobeyed by the
authorities.

6. Counsel for the applicant has tried to demonstrate through photographs
that coercive action has been taken. However, he has failed to establish that
the shop/house in question has been demolished by authorities, while
authorities have come up with a specific case that no demolition activity has
CAPL No. 2208 of 2026
4

been carried out.

7. This Court cannot do roving and fishing inquiry while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

8. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive
Officer and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and
another 2022 (1) SCC 101 has held as under:-

"8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a wilful disobedience of a
decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "wilful"
disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a
contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard
of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher
official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the
element of wilfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a
deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof
beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in
nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in
the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust
the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to
contend that the benefit of the order passed has not been actually given,
through separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but
certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding. While dealing with a
contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry
and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said
principle has to be applied with more vigour when disputed questions of
facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt
with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings."

9. In view of said fact, the contempt application is misconceived and stands
dismissed.

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
May 7, 2026
(V. S. SINGH)

Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…