Allahabad High Court

SMT. PRITI AGRAWALversusSRI. SATYENDRA KUMAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VARANASI AND 6 OTHERS

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

Holding

The State's possession of the property, effected through a valid sale deed, does not constitute contempt of court.

Summary

The applicant, a tenant of a house in Varanasi, feared demolition and filed a writ petition which was disposed directing her to approach the landlord for relief. Subsequently, the owners of the house executed sale deeds transferring the property to the Public Works Department. The applicant then filed a contempt application alleging the State’s possession was unlawful. The Court examined the sale deeds and held that the State acquired the property through a valid voluntary transfer, and therefore could take possession without compulsory acquisition. Relying on precedent that State authorities may possess property only via voluntary transfer or compulsory acquisition, the Court found no ground for contempt. The contempt application was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the State's possession of the property after a valid sale deed amounts to contempt of court.
Whether the State can take possession of property without compulsory acquisition when a voluntary transfer has occurred.

Subjects

tenancy
demolition
contempt of court
sale deed
compulsory acquisition
public works department
property possession

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2705 of 2026

Smt. Priti Agrawal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate Varanasi
And 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. Applicant before this Court is a tenant of House No. CK-43/167-167A-
170 Govindpura Halka Chowk, Varanasi. Apprehending the demolition
and eviction applicant with other persons had approached this Court
through Writ-C No. 6952 of 2026 which was disposed of on 20.2.2026 in
following terms;

"1. Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners
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
CAPL No. 2705 of 2026
2

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 /
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 Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
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
petitioners approach the respondent authority through their land
owner/landlord for the grievance against the demolition and protection of
their tenancy within two weeks from today, it will consider their
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 applicant was
directed to file a representation through her land owner/landlord before
the respondent authority.

3. In paragraph no. 10 of the personal affidavit filed by the District
Magistrate, Varanasi it has been stated that the owner of the said house
was Mohisina Sheikh, Abdul Rasid Sheikh and Noorafsa Parveen, who
have executed sale-deed in favour of Public Works Department Varanasi
on 17.1.2026 and 21.1.2026 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,11,71,620/-,
copy of the sale-deed has been appended as anneuxre Nos. 2 and 3 to the
personal affidavit.
CAPL No. 2705 of 2026
3

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…