Allahabad High Court
RAHUL ARORA AND ANOTHERversusSRI SATYENDRA KUMAR AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The Court held that no contempt of court existed as the State had partially complied with the earlier order and no intimidation or unlawful demolition was evident.
Summary
The petitioners challenged a Government Order dated 31.03.2025 authorising road widening in Varanasi, alleging that the State was threatening demolition of their properties without proper acquisition. The High Court earlier directed that any acquisition must be through mutual consent or under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013. A contempt application was filed alleging non‑compliance with that direction. The District Magistrate’s affidavit showed that one co‑owner had sold his share to the Public Works Department and that no coercion or intimidation of occupants had occurred. The Court held that the State had partially complied with the earlier order and that no contempt had arisen. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the State's actions amount to contempt of the High Court for allegedly violating its earlier direction on land acquisition for road widening.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- contempt of court
- land acquisition
- road widening
- government order
- due process
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013
- property rights
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2631 of 2026
Rahul Arora And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Sri Satyendra Kumar And 5 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akanksha Srivastava, Quazi
Mohammad Akaram
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. The writ Court on 21.5.2025 in Writ-C No. 16448 of 2025 had passed
the following order;
"1. Heard Sri Q.M. Akaram, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of a Government
Order dated 31.03.2025 by which certain amount was
sanctioned by the State Government for widening and
beautification of six roads in District Varanasi. The case of
the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 2 is owner of House
No. CK43/113-A, Govindpura, Kalan, Dalmandi, Varanasi,
petitioners no. 3 and 4 claim to be owner of House No.
CK43/114 Dalmandi, Varanasi and petitioners no. 1 & 5
claim to be tenants of House Nos. CK39/74-76, Raja Katra,
Dalmandi, Varanasi and CK43/121, Mohalla Govindpura
Kalan, Dalmandi Road, District Varanasi. The case of the
petitioners is that the respondents in pursuance of
Government Order dated 31.03.2025 are threatening to
demolish their constructions without acquiring their
property/rights as per provisions of law.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the
CAPL No. 2631 of 2026
2
controversy involved herein is covered by order dated
20.5.2025 passed in Writ C No. 12319 of 2025 (Shahnawaz
Khan vs. State of U.P. and Others).
4. The operative part of the said order is extracted below:-
"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.
CAPL No. 2631 of 2026
3
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."
5. Having regard to the aforesaid, we dispose of the instant
petition in same terms."
2. Today a personal affidavit of District Magistrate, Varanasi and
Municipal Commissioner have been filed which are taken on record. In
paragraph no. 10 of the personal affidavit filed by the District Magistrate,
Varanasi it has been stated that the property in question i.e. House No.
CK-39/74, 76 Govindpura Shahar Khas, Dalmandi, Varanasi was jointly
owned by Sri Maharaja Kasiraj Dharm Karya Nidhi Trust as well as Smt.
Anita Tibrewal, Smt. Garima Jaiswal and Sri Lalit Kumar Srimali. It is
further stated that Sri Maharaja Kasiraj Dharm Karya Nidhi Trust has sold
its portion of the property alongwith structure in favour of Public Works
Department Varanasi on 15.11.2025 for a sale consideration of Rs.
1,68,14,899/-, copy of the sale-deed has been appended as anneuxre No. 2
to the personal affidavit of opposite party no. 1. Further, in paragraph no.
11 it has been stated that none of the residents have been intimidated or
coerced for vacating the property in question and administration is
following the due process of law for taking the possession of house in
question.
CAPL No. 2631 of 2026
4
4. As the sale-deed has been executed by a co-owner of the property in
question, order of writ Court has been partly complied to the extent that
one sale-deed has been executed in favour of Public Works Department
Varanasi and State is not proceeding as far as other occupants are
concerned, 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
Checking your session…