SYED REYAZ MAHDIversusSRI. SATYENDRA KUMAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VARANASI AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2214 of 2026

Syed Reyaz Mahdi
                                                                   .....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. The applicant, before this Court, claims to be owner of House No. CK-
67/1-R, Vaka Mohalla Fathak Sheikh Saleem, Dalmandi, District-
Varanasi. He had approached the writ Court through Writ-C No. 27801 of
2025 which was disposed of on 01.09.2025 and following order was
passed:-

     "1. Heard Mr. Quazi Mohammad Akaram,, learned counsel for the
     petitioners and Shri Devesh Vikra, 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. 2214 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. 2214 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)."

2. The present contempt proceeding has been initiated on the ground that
obstruction has been caused to the house of the applicant and it has been
damaged.

3. A personal affidavit of District Magistrate, Varanasi has been filed on
27.04.2026 wherein in para no. 10, it has been stated that House No. CK-
67/1 is the first floor of the building which was jointly owned by Smt.
Meraj Fatma and Sri Ali Haidar. Both the owners have executed a sale-
deed in favour of Public Works Department on 20.01.2026 and
25.01.2026 for sale consideration of Rs.58,57,784/-. Copy of sale-deed
has been appended as annexure no. 2 and 3 to personal affidavit. Further,
in para no. 11, it has been stated that shop of the applicant, which is on
the ground floor, is numbered as CK-67/1-R and the same has not been
demolished.

4. Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Nagar Nigam,
Varanasi informs that Nagar Nigam, Varanasi was not a party in the writ
petition and in the contempt proceeding, they have been arrayed as a
party.

5. In view of said fact, no case for contempt is made out against the
officers of Nagar Nigam, Varanasi.

6. Counsel for the applicant submitted that though the shop has not been
demolished, obstruction has been caused as the debris of first floor has
                                                                                            CAPL No. 2214 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    been kept outside his shop which has affected his business and caused
                                    damage to the shop. He has relied upon the photographs appended as
                                    annexure-1 to rejoinder affidavit filed in the instant contempt application.

                                    7. As the affidavit filed by District Magistrate has remained
                                    uncontroverted, the contempt application stands dismissed.

                                    8. However, the District Magistrate, Varanasi is hereby directed to get all
                                    the debris, if any, lying before the shop of the applicant removed, within a
                                    week, from today.



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




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