SYED ZAFAR MEHENDIversusSRISATYENDRA KUMAR AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2483 of 2026

Syed Zafar Mehendi
                                                                   .....Applicant(s)
                                      Versus

Srisatyendra Kumar 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. Apprehending demolition of property in question, applicant, who is a
tenant, had approached this Court through Writ-C No. 113 of 2026 which
was disposed of on 8.1.2026 in following terms;

     "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Fuzail Ahmad
     Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.

     2. At the outset, Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel
     apprises the Court that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the
     order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the coordinate Bench in Writ C
     No.40143 of 2025 (Mukhtar Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and 2 others).

     3. For ready reference, the order dated 24.11.2025 is quoted herein
     below:-

     "1. Petitioner claims to be tenant and is under threat of the demolition of
     the house of the land lord in a Dalmandi area of city of Varanasi where
     the road widening is taking place at the end of the State-respondents and
     the local authorities.

     2. In our considered view, the owner of the property would be the real
     aggrieved person.

     3. In the circumstances, we dispose of this petition with direction to the
     petitioner to approach the respondent no.2 and 3 through his land owner /
                                                                CAPL No. 2483 of 2026
                                   2


     land lord for the grievance against the demolition and protection of his
     tenancy and we further provide that in the event landlord approaches the
     respondent authority, it will consider his representation and shall dispose
     of the same in accordance with law."

     4. So far as factual and legal aspect is concerned, the same is not disputed
     by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he submits that some time
     may be accorded to file the representation through his land
     owner/landlord before the competent authority for redressal of his
     grievance in the light of the order passed in the case of Mukhtar Ahmad
     (supra).

     5. We are in respectful agreement with the coordinate Bench order passed
     in Mukhtar Ahmad' case (supra). However, we observe that in case the
     petitioner approaches the respondent authority through his land
     owner/landlord for the grievance against the demolition and protection of
     his tenancy within two weeks from today, it will consider his
     representation and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

     6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands
     disposed of. "

2. From perusal of the order of writ Court, it is clear that the Court had
permitted the applicant to file a reply through his landlord/land owner
before the competent authority, which was to be decided.

3. According to applicant's counsel a representation has been moved,
which is pending consideration, copy of which has been appended as
annexure No. 2 to the affidavit to the contempt application.

4. Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned CSC appearing for Nagar Nigam
Varanasi submits that Nagar Nigam was not a party in writ petition and
no notice has been issued by Nagar Nigam to the applicant.

5. Personal affidavit of the District Magistrate, Varanasi has been filed
wherein it has been stated that the house in question is not being
demolished by the State authorities.

6. As the representation, filed pursuant to the direction of writ Court, is
                                                                                           CAPL No. 2483 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    pending consideration, District Magistrate, Varanasi is directed to proceed
                                    with the same and take a final call, in accordance with law, within a
                                    period of two weeks from today.

                                    7. In view of the said facts, 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