Allahabad High Court

MOHAMMAD SHAMSUDDIN QURAISHIversusSRI SATYENDRA KUMAR AND 5 OTHERS

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

Holding

The Court held that no contempt lies as the writ order was complied with by acquiring the title through a registered sale deed.

Summary

The applicant, a tenant of a shop in Varanasi, feared demolition of his premises and filed a writ petition seeking to quash government orders and obtain compensation and rehabilitation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The High Court, relying on the decision in Shahnawaz Khan v. State of U.P., ordered that the title to the land be acquired either by voluntary transfer or by compulsory acquisition under the Act. The authorities subsequently purchased the land and the shop through a registered sale deed with the Public Works Department. A contempt application was filed alleging non‑compliance with the writ order. The Court examined the sale deed, found that the acquisition complied with the earlier order, and held that no contempt had occurred. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the authorities' purchase of the land and shop through a sale deed amounts to compliance with the writ court's order requiring acquisition by voluntary transfer or compulsory acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Whether the filing of a contempt application is justified on the ground of alleged non‑compliance with the writ order.

Legislation cited

Right to Fair Compensation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Subjects

contempt
land acquisition
compensation
Right to Fair Compensation and Resettlement Act 2013
writ petition
demolition
tenancy

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2348 of 2026

Mohammad Shamsuddin Quraishi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Quazi Mohammad Akaram
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

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

1. The applicant, before this Court, is tenant of House No. CK-67/27, Fatak
Sheikh Saleem, Varanasi. Apprehending demolition of his shop, he had
approached this Court through Writ-C No. 36395 of 2025 which was
disposed of on 27.10.2025 in light of the decision rendered in case of
Shahnawaz Khan vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ C No.12319 of 2025,
decided on 20.05.2025, 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
Division Bench while passing the order dated 21.05.2025 in Writ-C
CAPL No. 2348 of 2026
2

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
submits that the respondents would not disturb the possession of the
CAPL No. 2348 of 2026
3

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. In the personal affidavit filed by District Magistrate, Varanasi, it has been
stated in para no. 10 that the said house has been sold by its owners Smt.
Irfana Bano, Smt. Tabassum Parveen, Smt. Nasrin Bano, Smt. Razia
Khatoon, Sri Irshad Ahmad, Sri Asfaq Ahmad, Sri Dilsad Ahmad and Sri
Azaz Ahmad in favour of Public Works Department for a sale consideration
of Rs.88,24,252/-. Copy of the sale-deed has been appended as annexure-2
to personal affidavit.

3. The order of writ Court was to the extent that title was to be acquired
through voluntary transfer or by compulsory acquisition or any other mode
recognized under law. In the instant case, the land along with structure has
been purchased by the authorities through registered sale-deed.

4. In view of above, no case for contempt is made out as the order of writ
Court has been complied with.

5. 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…