MOHD ASHFAQUEversusSRI SATYENDRA KUMAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND 6 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2722 of 2026

Mohd Ashfaque
                                                                  .....Applicant(s)
                                      Versus

Sri Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate And 6
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. Applicant had approached this Court through Writ-C No. 42786 of
2025 which was disposed of on 11.12.2025 in following terms;

     "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ambrish Shukla,
     learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

     2. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for the following
     reliefs:-

     " 1. Issue a writ, order or direction in 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. "

     3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are the
     owner of the land and the same dispute is already settled by the
     coordinate Bench vide 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).
                                                          CAPL No. 2722 of 2026
                              2


4. For ready reference, 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 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
                                                                 CAPL No. 2722 of 2026
                                   3


     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. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents
     fairly states that qua the landlord, he has no objection and the instant writ
     petition on their behalf may be disposed of in terms of the judgement
     passed in the case of Shahnawaz Khan (supra).

     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. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of in
     the same terms as have been enumerated in the case of Shahnawaz Khan
     (supra)."

2. Applicant's counsel states that Nagar Nigam Varanasi had issued a
notice to the applicant for demolition.

3. Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned CSC appearing for Nagar Nigam
Varanasi submits that Nagar Nigam was not a party in writ petition and
only a notice has been issued which till date, according to him, has not
been replied by the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for applicant states that applicant has already replied
to the said notice.

5. Personal affidavit filed by the District Magistrate Varanasi reveals that
no action for demolition is being taken by the State authorities.

6. In view of the said facts, no case for contempt is made out. Contempt
application stands dismissed.

7. However, in case any reply has been filed, as alleged by applicant's
counsel, on 17.4.2026 to the notice issued by Nagar Nigam Varanasi, the
                                                                                          CAPL No. 2722 of 2026
                                                                  4


                                    Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Varanasi shall take up the matter
                                    and decide the same, in accordance with law, considering the reply of the
                                    applicant, within a period of two weeks from today.



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




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