MOHAMMAD SAJID KHANversusSRI SATYENDRA KUMAR , DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2212 of 2026

Mohammad Sajid Khan
                                                           .....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. The applicant, before this Court, claims to be a tenant of one Ateek
Ahmad. Apprehending demolition and eviction of his shop, he had
approached the writ Court through Writ-C No. 40254 of 2025 which was
disposed of on 08.12.2025. The writ Court while disposing of the writ
petition had observed that in case the applicant approaches respondent
authorities through his landlord/land owner for grievance against
demolition and protection of his tenancy, within two weeks from the date
of the order, the representation was to be considered and decided by the
authorities.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that already a representation
has been filed before authorities through land owner, which is pending
consideration.

3. In the personal affidavit filed by District Magistrate, Varanasi, it has
been stated that no action has been taken against the applicant till date.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon two decisions of
Hon'ble Apex Court one in case of Mangat Ram vs. State of Haryana,
1996 (8) SCC 664 and the other passed in Special Leave to Appeal No.
13695 of 2019, Santosh Kumar Chaurasia and others vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh, decided on 19.06.2019.

5. According to him, the building could not be taken by State authorities
                                                             CAPL No. 2212 of 2026
                                   2


without paying compensation to the tenant.

6. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material
on record.

7. The writ Court simplicitor had directed the applicant to approach the
authorities through his land lord/land owner for redressal of his grievance
against demolition and protection of his tenancy. As the matter is still
pending before district authorities, the same has to be addressed by the
authorities. The writ Court had not granted any protection to the applicant
while disposing of the writ petition on 08.12.2025.

8. Moreover, the judgment relied upon in case of Santosh Kumar
Chaurasia (supra) is not applicable in the instant case as parties before
Hon'ble Supreme Court had amicably settled the matter and payment was
made to occupier of the shop as per settlement arrived between the
parties.

9. Further, in Mangat Ram (supra), the matter was in regard to
enhancement of compensation awarded in reference proceeding. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere in the order of Division Bench
by which the determination of compensation was made. The counsel has
misread the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as rendered in paragraph
no. 7 of the said judgment. The entire judgment rendered in case of
Mangat Ram (supra) is extracted hereasunder:-

     " 1. Leave granted.

     2. Heard learned counsel for all the parties.

     3. The notification under Section 4(1) was published on 16-8-1983 for
     acquiring 49 acres 1 kanal 15 marlas of land for establishing a
     commercial market of Auto Vehicles and for commercial purposes in
     Sirsa. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at the
     rate of Rs 25,000 per acre. On reference, the Additional District Judge
     enhanced the compensation to Rs 30,000 per acre. When the matter was
     carried in appeal, the learned Single Judge enhanced the compensation to
     Rs 27.50 per sq. yd. In LPA, the compensation was enhanced to Rs 40 per
     sq. yd.
                                                          CAPL No. 2212 of 2026
                              3


4. The Municipal Committee filed appeals arising out of SLPs Nos.
23334-35 of 1994 and 20331-32 of 1994. The appeals arising out of SLPs
Nos. 9046, 8448 and 7231 of 1994 are filed by the Punjab Wakf Board.
The appeals arising out of SLPs Nos. 535-36 of 1994 are filed by the
tenants for the apportionment in a reference under Section 30.

5. The question is: whether the determination of the compensation by the
High Court is correct in law? It is not in dispute that the Municipal
Committee had not filed any appeal against the enhancement of
compensation by the learned Single Judge to the Division Bench.
Dissatisfied with the enhancement of the compensation, the claimants
filed LPA and the Division Bench enhanced the compensation to Rs 40
per sq. yd. It would appear that in similar cases, the land situated in
similar situation, the High Court had granted compensation at the same
rates and the Division Bench reduced the developmental charges from
40% to 33 1/3%.

6. In view of the fact that in other cases the compensation was determined
at the rate of Rs 40 per sq. yd. which was allowed to become final, we
decline to interfere with the determination of the compensation by the
Division Bench of the High Court.

7. As regards apportionment of the compensation, the High Court has
directed to pay 1/4 to the tenant and 3/4 to the Wakf Board. In view of the
judgment in Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur v. Bihari Lal
[(1994) 4 SCC 523] and Inder Parshad v. Union of India [(1994) 5 SCC
239] , the tenants are entitled to 3/4 of the compensation while the
landlord is entitled to 1/4 of the compensation. In view of the above law,
the order of the High Court in appeals arising from reference under
Section 30 is modified to the extent that appellants/tenants Mangat Ram
and Others are entitled to 3/4th while the Wakf Board is entitled to 1/4th
of the compensation amount. The amount awarded in the judgment of the
Single Judge under Section 23(1-A) also requires to be apportioned
accordingly.

8. The appeals are disposed of. The appeals of RC are dismissed. No
costs."
                                                                                             CAPL No. 2212 of 2026
                                                                    4


                                    10. No benefit can be extended to the applicant in view of judgment cited
                                    by his counsel.

                                    11. As the matter is still pending consideration before district authorities,
                                    district authorities are hereby directed to immediately decide the
                                    representation of the applicant, within a period of two weeks, from today.

                                    12. In view of said fact, no case for contempt is made out, at this stage.

                                    13. 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