Allahabad High Court
JAVED AKHTARversusSRI. SATYENDRA KUMAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The Court held that no contempt of court had occurred as the shop had not been demolished, and therefore dismissed the contempt application.
Summary
The applicant, Javed Akhtar, sought contempt proceedings against the District Magistrate and other officials, alleging that the State had failed to demolish his shop despite a pending road‑widening project. The High Court noted that the applicant had previously been a party to Writ‑C No. 41227/2025, which was disposed of by referring to the judgment in Shahnawaz Khan vs State of U.P. (Writ‑C No. 12319/2025). The District Magistrate’s affidavit confirmed that no eviction or demolition action had been taken against the applicant’s property. The Municipal Commissioner of Nagar Nigam Varanasi had issued a notice, to which the applicant had replied, and the Court directed the Commissioner to decide the matter within three weeks. Since the shop had not been demolished and no contemptuous act by the State could be established, the Court dismissed the contempt application.
Issues considered
- Whether the State authorities' failure to demolish the applicant's shop amounts to contempt of court
- Whether the Municipal Commissioner must decide the notice issued to the applicant within a specified time
Legislation cited
Subjects
- contempt
- municipal authority
- land acquisition
- demolition
- writ petition
- High Court
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2469 of 2026
Javed Akhtar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate And 5
Others .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aftab Alam, Manoj Kumar, Quazi
Mohammad Akaram
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Applicant before this Court was one of the party in Writ-C No. 41227
of 2025 which was disposed of on 1.12.2025 in following terms;
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri N.K. Panday,
learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 No.16448 of
2025 (Rahul Arora and others vs. State of U.P. and others).
3. 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
CAPL No. 2469 of 2026
2
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."
4. So far as factual and legal aspect is concerned, the same could not be
disputed by learned Standing Counsel.
CAPL No. 2469 of 2026
3
5. 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.
6. The present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as have been
given in Shahnawaz Khan (Supra)."
2. Personal affidavit of the 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 State authority against the
applicant in respect of House No. CK-43/116 Govindpura, Dalmandi,
Varanasi.
3. Sri B.B. Pandey, learned CSC appearing for Nagar Nigam, submits that
a notice has been issued by Nagar Nigam and Nagar Nigam Varanasi was
not a party in writ proceedings.
4. According to applicant's counsel, reply to the said notice has been
submitted by the applicant.
5. After hearing learned counsel for parties and perusal of record, I find
that as reply has been submitted by the applicant to the notice issued by
Nagar Nigam Varanasi, Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Varanasi
is directed to proceed with the same and decide the matter, in accordance
with law, on the basis of reply submitted by the applicant, within a period
of next three weeks.
6. In view of the aforesaid, as the shop in question has not been
demolished by the State authorities till date, no case for contempt is made
out. Contempt application stands dismissed.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
May 7, 2026
Shekhar
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…