Allahabad High Court

JAYA CHAURASIYA AND ANOTHERversusSEELAM SAI TEJA, MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, NAGAR NIGAM

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: VIKAS BUDHWAR

Holding

The Court consigned the contempt application to the record and directed that any issues be raised before the writ court that issued the demolition order.

Summary

The petitioners filed a contempt application alleging that the Municipal Commissioner willfully defied the High Court’s order dated 2 July 2026 directing demolition of a dilapidated building. The opposite party produced a notice dated 8 September 2026 showing the building remained unsafe, occupied, and that demolition costs were estimated at Rs 20.28 lakh. The petitioners argued that the amount was exorbitant and that the failure to demolish amounted to contempt. The Court held that any grievance regarding the demolition cost or procedure must be raised before the writ court that issued the original order, not in the contempt proceeding. Consequently, the contempt application was consigned to the record, leaving the petitioners free to raise their issues in the pending writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the Municipal Corporation’s failure to demolish the building amounts to contempt of the High Court’s order
Whether the estimated demolition cost of Rs 20.28 lakh can be challenged in a contempt proceeding
Whether the petitioner should raise objections to the demolition order before the writ court rather than in the contempt application

Legislation cited

Tenancy Act — s. 2021
Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act — s. 331

Subjects

contempt
municipal corporation
demolition
dilapidated building
public safety
Tenancy Act
municipal law
cost estimation
procedural law

Judgment

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6149 of 2026

Jaya Chaurasiya and another
                                                                     .....Applicant(s)
                                        Versus

Seelam Sai Teja, Municipal Commissioner, Nagar
Nigam                                                                     .....Opposite
                                                                                Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Amrita Prakash,                   Anand       Prakash
                                Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

Court No. - 53
                        HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1 The present contempt application has been preferred alleging willful
defiance of the order dated 02.07.2026 passed in Writ-C no. 22320 of
2026 (Jaya Chaurasiya and anothers versus State of U.P. and others),
order whereof is quoted herein under:-

"1. Sri Anand Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and
Sri Vikas Rastogi, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya,
appearing for respondent no. 3-Municipal Corporation, Prayagraj.
2. The petitioner, being the owner of the building, which is in a dilapidated condition,
is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Municipal Corporation, Prayagraj, in
carrying out the demolition proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 01.11.2023.
3. It is contended that the sitting tenant, though having approached the Court, has not
been able to obtain any interim protection. However, the tenant is allegedly exerting
pressure upon the local body concerned to prevent the demolition of the building and
thereby continue in occupation of the dilapidated premises. Pleadings to this effect
have been specifically made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the writ petition.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, while the rights of the tenant
stand protected under the Tenancy Act, 2021, the competent authority is nevertheless
under a statutory obligation to act upon the notice issued for demolition of the
building, which has admittedly reached a dilapidated condition. If such a building
were to collapse in a densely populated area, it may endanger not only the life and
property of the petitioner but also those of the occupants and residents in the
surrounding locality.
5. Accordingly, in the larger interest of justice and public safety, the Municipal
                                                                           CAPL No. 6149 of 2026
                                          2

Corporation, Prayagraj is directed to carry out the demolition of the building strictly
in accordance with law and after following the prescribed procedure.
6. Affidavit to this effect may be filed before this Court by the next date fixed.
7. List this case on 16.07.2026."

2. Today, when the matter was taken up, Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, (AoR
No.A/V 0117/2012), who claims to have appeared before the writ Court on
behalf of the opposite party has produced before this Court a
noting/instructions dated 08.09.2026 of the Executive Engineer Nagar
Nigam Prayagraj, Assistant Engineer Nagar Nigam Prayagraj and Junior
Engineer Nagar Nigam Prayagraj, which reads as under:-

"सहायक अभियंता / अधिशासी अभियंता / विधि विभाग
विषय:- माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में योजित रिट याचिका सं०-22320/2026 जया चौरसिया
बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य व 03 अन्य में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 02 जुलाई 2026 एवं
अवमानना वाद सं०-6149/2026 के सम्बन्ध में।
          कृपया उपरोक्त विषय के सम्बन्ध में अवगत कराना है कि संदर्भित प्रकरण में जर्जर भवन सं०
449ए/01/383-ए नारायण सिंह नगर बादशाही मण्डी प्रयागराज में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में
योजित रिट याचिका सं०-22320/2026 जया चौरसिया बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य व 03 अन्य में दिनांक 02
जुलाई 2026 को माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश एवं अवमानना वाद सं०-6149/2026 के
सम्बन्ध में अवगत कराना है कि भवन सं० 449ए/01/383-ए नारायण सिंह नगर बादशाही मण्डी प्रयागराज
को जाँच के दौरान जर्जर एवं खतरनाक स्थिति में पाया गया तथा जर्जर भवनों हेतु गठित समिति की संस्तुति
पर नगर निगम द्वारा उक्त भवन स्वामी तथा उसके अध्याशी को नगर निगम अधिनियम 1959 की धारा 331
के अन्तर्गत नोटिस निर्गत करते हुए जर्जर भवन सं० 449ए/01/383-ए नारायण सिंह नगर बादशाही मण्डी
प्रयागराज को सावधानी पूर्वक गिरवा लेने हेतु निर्देशित किया गया है, किन्तु भवन स्वामी द्वारा अब तक उक्त
जर्जर भवन को गिराया नहीं गया है।माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अपने दिनांक 02 जुलाई 2026 को पारित
आदेश में उक्त जर्जर भवन को नियमानुसार गिराये जाने के सम्बन्ध में नगर निगम को आदेशित किया गया है।
आदेश के अनुपालन में भवन का स्थलीय निरीक्षण किया गया, भवन में कुछ लोग अभी भी निवासित हैं।
वर्तमान में भवन जर्जर एवं खतरनाक स्थिति में है, जिसे खाली कराकर गिराया जाना नितान्त आवश्यक है।
जर्जर भवन के ध्वस्तीकरण कार्य पर आने वाले व्ययानुमान धनांक रू0 20.28 लाख का आकलन किया गया
है। नियमानुसार भवन के ध्वस्तीकरण कार्य पर आने वाला व्यय भवन स्वामी द्वारा नगर निगम कोष में जमा
करने के उपरान्त ही नगर निगम द्वारा निविदा आदि की प्रक्रिया पूर्ण कराते हुए उक्त भवन के ध्वस्तीकरण का
कार्य कराया जायेगा।
        आख्या अवलोकनार्थ एवं आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु अग्रसारित है।"

3. A perusal of the same would reveal that the building which is being
requested to be demolished is in dilapidated condition and the total amount,
                                                                                                CAPL No. 6149 of 2026
                                                                      3


                                    which the opposite parties is charging for demolition towards expenses is
                                    Rs.20,28,000.00.

                                    4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said amount is
                                    exorbitant.

                                    5. Whatever might be, the order of the Writ Court itself provided that the
                                    Municipal Corporation through its officials and functionaries were to carry
                                    out demolition of the buildings strictly in accordance with law and following
                                    the prescribed procedure and an affidavit was to the said effect was to be
                                    filed before the writ Court by the next date fixed which was 16.07.2026.
                                    Thus, once the writ petition itself is pending and in view of the order passed
                                    by the Division Bench of this Court, it is for the applicant to raise the said
                                    issue before the writ Court itself.

                                    6. Accordingly, the contempt application is consigned to record, leaving it
                                    open to the applicant to raise all these issues before the writ Court.

                                    7. Let a copy of the instructions be served upon the learned counsel for the
                                    applicant.

                                    8. Instructions filed today are taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A'.

                                    September 23, 2026
                                    N.S.Rathour

                                                                                               (Vikas Budhwar,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…