Allahabad High Court
JAVED AKHTARversusSRI. SATYENDRA KUMAR AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The contempt application is dismissed as the VDA was not a party to the writ proceedings and the applicant is given a chance to reply to the notice.
Summary
The applicant, Javed Akhtar, who was a party to Writ‑C No. 46093 of 2025 concerning the proposed widening of Dal Mandi road in Varanasi, sought a contempt order after the Varanasi Development Authority (VDA) issued a notice on 23‑Apr‑2026. The earlier writ was disposed on 22‑Jan‑2026, relying on judgments that any acquisition of land must follow the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, and that no demolition had been undertaken. The court noted that the VDA was not a party to the original writ proceedings. It directed the applicant to reply to the VDA notice within one week and instructed the VDA to consider the reply and pass any orders within three weeks, in accordance with law. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the contempt application filed by the applicant is maintainable when the Varanasi Development Authority, which issued the notice, was not a party to the original writ proceedings.
- Whether the applicant should be given an opportunity to respond to the notice issued by the VDA before any contempt proceedings can proceed.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- contempt
- land acquisition
- road widening
- notice
- jurisdiction
- writ
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2484 of 2026
Javed Akhtar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Sri. Satyendra 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. Applicant before this Court was one of the party in Writ-C No. 46093 of
2025 which was disposed of on 22.1.2026 in following terms;
"1. Heard Sri Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State respondents.
2. The petitioners have preferred this petition, inter alia, for the
following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus
commanding respondents restraining them from demolishing the
construction of the petitioners without acquiring the property of the
petitioners.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus
commanding Respondents to restraining them from forcing the
petitioners to remove/demolish the construction of the petitioners.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus
commanding Respondents not to force the petitioners to sign the
agreement of will fully giving the land of the petitioners to the
government.
(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus
commanding Respondents to restrain them from giving any threat
or visiting the premises of the petitioners forcing him to demolish
his house or leave his house or hand over his house to the
government."
CAPL No. 2484 of 2026
2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner apprises the Court that the
controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgment 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 of this Court while passing
the order dated 12.09.2025 in Writ-C No. 31841 of 2025
(Mohammad Faheem and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others).
4. For ready reference, operative portion of the 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/F-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
CAPL No. 2484 of 2026
3
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."
5. Having regard to the aforesaid, we dispose of the instant petition
in same terms."
2. Personal affidavit of the District Magistrate, Varanasi has been filed wherein
in paragraph no. 10 it has been stated that no action for eviction or demolition
has been taken by the State authority against the applicant in respect of
House No. CK-43/118 Mohalla Chahamma, Varanasi.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that after filing of contempt
application a notice has been given by Varanasi Development Authority on
23.4.2026.
4. After hearing learned counsel for parties and perusal of record, I find that
Varanasi Development Authority was not a party in writ proceedings, however,
in case, any notice has been issued by Varanasi Development Authority, the
applicant will have one week time to reply to the said notice and, thereafter,
Varanasi Development Authority shall consider the same and pass necessary
orders, in accordance with law, within a period of next three weeks.
5. Contempt application stands disposed of.
May 7, 2026
Shekhar
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…