Allahabad High Court
ZAFAR KHANversusSRI. SATYENDRA KUMAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VARANASI 6 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
No contempt exists as no coercive action or demolition proceedings have been initiated, so the contempt application is dismissed.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court examined a contempt application filed by Zafar Khan against the District Magistrate, Varanasi, alleging threats to demolish his house without proper land acquisition. The court recalled its earlier order in Writ‑C No. 41972/2025, which stipulated that demolition could only occur after acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, or with the owner’s consent. Affidavits submitted by the parties showed that the District Magistrate’s affidavit expressly stated that no coercive action, eviction or demolition proceedings had been initiated against the house. Finding that the essential element of contempt – a willful disobedience of a court direction – was absent, the court held that no contempt had occurred. Accordingly, the contempt application was dismissed, reaffirming the need to follow due process under the 2013 land‑acquisition law before any demolition.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent's conduct amounts to contempt of court in view of the earlier writ order
- Whether demolition of the petitioner’s house can be carried out without acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013
Legislation cited
Subjects
- contempt of court
- land acquisition
- demolition
- mandamus
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013
- district magistrate
- procedural law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2703 of 2026
Zafar Khan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate Varanasi 6
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. The writ Court on 28.11.2025 in Writ-C No. 41972 of 2025 had passed the
following order;
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ambrish
Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for
the State respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following
relief:
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus
commanding respondents restraining them from demolishing the
construction of the petitioner without acquiring the property of the
petitioner.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus
commanding Respondents to restraining them from forcing the
petitioner to remove/demolish the construction of the petitioner.
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus
commanding Respondents not to force the petitioner to sign the
agreement of will fully giving the land of the petitioner 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 petitioner forcing him to demolish his
house or leave his house or hand over his house to the
government."
CAPL No. 2703 of 2026
2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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).
4. 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 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
CAPL No. 2703 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. So far as factual and legal aspect, the same is not disputed by
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
6. 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. The present writ petition is disposed of in the
same terms as have been given in Shahnawaz Khan (Supra)."
2. A personal affidavit of District Magistrate and Municipal Commissioner,
Nagar Nigam Varanasi has been filed today, which are taken on record. In
paragraph no. 10 of the affidavit filed by District Magistrate it has been stated
that no coercive action has been taken against the applicant, nor any
proceeding for eviction or demolition is being undertaken in respect of House
No. CK-43/154, Dalmandi, Varanasi.
3. As no proceedings are initiated against the applicant for vacating or
demolishing the house in question, no case for contempt is made out.
Contempt application stands dismissed.
May 7, 2026
Shekhar
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…