NIZAM ALIversusSRI. SATYENDRA KUMAR AND 6 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
               CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2726 of 2026

Nizam Ali
                                                                      .....Applicant(s)
                                       Versus

Sri. Satyendra Kumar 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 apprehending demolition of his house had approached this
Court through Writ-C No. 41839 of 2025 wherein an order has been
passed on 27.11.2025, which is as follows;

     "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Suresh Singh,
     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
     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.

     (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus commanding
     Respondents not to force the petitioners to sign the agreement of will
     fully giving the land of the petitioners 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
                                                          CAPL No. 2726 of 2026
                             2


premises of the petitioners forcing him to demolish his house or leave his
house or hand over his house to the government."

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
                                                              CAPL No. 2726 of 2026
                                   3


     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
     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. In the writ petition filed by the applicant neither Nagar Nigam Varanasi
nor Varanasi Development Authority were arrayed as party. According to
applicant's counsel notice has been issued by Municipal Commissioner,
Nagar Nigam Varanasi on 15.4.2026, which was replied by the applicant
on 18.4.2026. Thereafter, a notice has been issued by Varanasi
Development Authority on 17.4.2026.

3. Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned CSC appearing for Nagar Nigam
Varanasi submits that Nagar Nigam was not a party in writ petition and
Municipal Commissioner has been arrayed as a party in contempt
proceedings, similar is case with Varanasi Development Authority.
                                                                                            CAPL No. 2726 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    4. District Magistrate Varanasi had filed his personal affidavit stating that
                                    he has not proceeded with the matter of demolition and is not vacating the
                                    applicant nor demolishing the property in dispute.

                                    5. As matter is pending consideration before Varanasi Development
                                    Authority, applicant is granted opportunity to file reply to the notice given
                                    by Varanasi Development Authority on 17.4.2026 within a week from
                                    today. Thereafter, Nagar Nigam Varanasi and Varanasi Development
                                    Authority shall consider the reply filed by the applicant and take a final
                                    call on the same, in accordance with law, within next three weeks.

                                    6. No case for contempt is made out. Contempt application stands
                                    dismissed.



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




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