Allahabad High Court

RAJESH KUMAR GANDHIversusSRI SATYENDRA KUMAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND 5 OTHERS

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

Holding

The court held that the lawful sale of the property to the Public Works Department negated any contempt, leading to dismissal of the contempt application.

Summary

The High Court, while disposing of a writ petition concerning road widening, examined a contempt application filed by Rajesh Kumar Gandhi alleging illegal demolition of his house without notice. The court noted that the house had been sold by its owners to the Public Works Department on 14 January 2026, as evidenced by a sale deed annexed to the District Magistrate's affidavit. Citing the Division Bench decision in Shahnawaz Khan v. State of U.P., the court reiterated that the State may acquire property only through voluntary transfer or compulsory acquisition. Since the property was transferred voluntarily via a valid sale deed, no contempt of court arose. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the State's demolition of the petitioner's house without notice amounts to contempt of court.
Whether the State's acquisition of the property through a sale deed satisfies the legal requirement for possession, precluding contempt.
Whether the petition should be dismissed in light of earlier judgments (Shahnawaz Khan and Rahul Arora).

Subjects

contempt of court
property acquisition
sale deed
road widening
Article 226
public works department
judicial review

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2627 of 2026

Rajesh Kumar Gandhi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

Sri Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate 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 writ Court while disposing of Writ-C No. 36747 of 2025 on
28.10.2025 had passed the following order;

"Heard Sri Quazi Mohammad Akaram, learned counsel for the petitioner
as well as Sri P.K. Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner has questioned the Government Order dated 31.03.2025 and the
order dated 30.07.2025 issued by the State Government for road widening
purpose.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner's house stands at
a place where the road widening has taken place yet the petitioner has not
been issued with any notice and the respondents are proceeding to
demolish the standing construction of the petitioner. He contends that the
controversy is no more res integra in the light of order of this Court dated
20.05.2025 passed in Writ - C No. 12319 of 2025, Shahnawaz Khan v.
State of U.P. & 3 Others. He further submits that recently a writ petition
being Writ - C No. 16448 of 2025, Rahul Arora & 4 Others v. State of
U.P. & 3 Others stood disposed of vide order dated 21.05.2025 and hence
petitioner's case may also be disposed of in terms of the said order.

Sri P.K. Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on a pointed
query being made, submits that petitioner has not been able to submit any
CAPL No. 2627 of 2026
2

document showing his title in respect of the property in question.
However, he is not avers to the petition being disposed of in terms of the
order passed by this Court dated 21.05.2025 in Writ - C No. 16448 of
2025 as the petitioner would get an ample opportunity to put up his
defence before final action is taken by the authority.

In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of in terms of the order
passed by this Court dated 21.05.2025 in Writ - C No. 16448 of 2025."

2. A personal affidavit of the District Magistrate, Varanasi has been filed
today which is taken on record. In paragraph no. 10 of the said affidavit it
has been stated that the House No. CK-42/96 Chahmehma, Dalmandi,
Varanasi was jointly owned by Mohd. Saleem, Mohd. Nayab and Mohd.
Nawaj, who have executed sale-deed in favour of Public Works
Department Varanasi on 14.1.2026 for a sale consideration of Rs.
2,29,98,528/-, copy of the sale-deed has been appended as anneuxre No. 2
to the personal affidavit filed by opposite party no. 1.

4. As the sale-deeds have been executed by the owners of the property in
question. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Shahnawaz Khan
Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-C No. 12319 of 2025, had already
held that the State authorities can only take the possession of the property
either through voluntarily transfer or compulsory acquisition. In the
instant case, the State had purchased the property in question through a
valid sale-deed executed by the owners of the property, no case for
contempt is made out.

5. Contempt application stands dismissed.

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
May 7, 2026
Shekhar

Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…