Allahabad High Court
ZULFIKAR ALI VOHRAversusSRI SATYENDRA KUMAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The court held that no contempt exists as the State has not undertaken any demolition or eviction contrary to the earlier order.
Summary
The applicant, a tenant of shop CK‑42/7 in Dalmandi, Varanasi, feared demolition of his premises due to a road‑widening project and filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus restraining the authorities from dispossessing him without following legal procedure. The High Court, relying on an earlier order in Shahnawaz Khan v. State of U.P., held that any acquisition must be effected either by mutual consent or under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, and noted that no demolition or eviction action had been taken against the applicant. In the contempt proceedings, the State’s affidavit confirmed that no demolition activity had occurred and that the applicant had not been threatened to vacate. The court found that, given the absence of any breach of its earlier order, there was no ground for contempt. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- What constitutes contempt of the High Court's order restraining demolition of the tenant's shop?
- Whether the State's actions amount to a breach of the procedural requirements under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- contempt
- tenancy
- land acquisition
- demolition
- mandamus
- procedural due process
- Right to Fair Compensation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2211 of 2026
Zulfikar Ali Vohra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Sri Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate 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. The applicant, before this Court, claims to a tenant of Shop No. CK-
42/7, Chahmama, Ghughrani Gali, Dalmandi, District-Varanasi. The
original allottee of the shop is one Gulam Rasool. Apprehending the
demolition of the shop, the applicant has approached this Court through
Writ-C No. 31841 of 2025 which was disposed of on 12.09.2025 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-
CAPL No. 2211 of 2026
2
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
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."
CAPL No. 2211 of 2026
3
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. A personal affidavit of District Magistrate, Varanasi has been filed
wherein in paragraph no. 10, it has been stated that no action for eviction
or demolition has been taken by authorities against the applicant in
respect of the said shop. It has further been averred in the affidavit that
applicant has not been threatened to vacate his shop. Further, the
applicant is required to submit his document establishing the ownership
over the said property.
3. Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned counsel appearing of Nagar Nigam,
Varanasi has filed affidavit of opposite party no. 4 and submitted that
Nagar Nigam was not a party in the writ petition but has been arrayed as
opposite party in the contempt proceedings.
4. In view of said fact, as the State has come up with an affidavit stating
that no demolition activity has been carried out as far as shop of the
applicant is concerned, no case for contempt is made out. The contempt
application stands dismissed.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
May 7, 2026
(V. S. SINGH)
Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…