Allahabad High Court

SAJJAD AHAMAD AND ANOTHERversusSATYENDRA KUMAR AND 15 OTHERS

Decided: 30 September 2026
Bench: VIKAS BUDHWAR

Holding

The Court held that the stay order pertained only to Arazi No. 993 and therefore the demolition of structures on Arazi No. 921‑Ga does not constitute contempt.

Summary

The applicants filed a contempt application alleging willful defiance of a stay order dated 04‑02‑2026 that restrained demolition of structures on land covered by Criminal Revision No. 599 of 2026. The stay order related to Arazi No. 993 under Section 152 of the BNSS, 2023, while the applicants owned a separate parcel, Arazi No. 921‑Ga. The respondents demolished structures on Arazi 921‑Ga, and the applicants claimed this violated the stay. The Court examined whether the stay extended to the separate parcel and held that it did not, as the order expressly concerned only Arazi 993. Consequently, the demolition could not be treated as contempt, and the contempt application was dismissed, leaving the matter to be pursued in the appropriate forum. The Court also noted that the dispute over Arazi 921‑Ga is governed by a pending suit under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Issues considered

Whether the demolition of structures on Arazi No. 921‑Ga amounts to willful defiance of the stay order dated 04‑02‑2026 in Criminal Revision No. 599 of 2026.
Whether the stay order under Section 152 of the BNSS, 2023, applies to Arazi No. 921‑Ga or only to Arazi No. 993.
Whether the appropriate remedy for the alleged demolition lies in a contempt proceeding or in the pending suit under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Legislation cited

BNSS, 2023 — s. 152
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67

Subjects

contempt
stay order
demolition
land dispute
Section 152 BNSS
Section 67 U.P. Revenue Code
civil contempt
jurisdiction
sub judice

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6914 of 2026

Sajjad Ahamad And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Satyendra Kumar And 15 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sharda Prasad Mishra, Subhash Chandra
Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

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

1. Heard Sri Sharda Prasad Mishra along with Sri Subhash Chandra Maurya,
learned counsel(s) for the applicants.

2. The present contempt application has been preferred, alleging wilful
defiance of the order dated 04.02.2026 passed in Criminal Revision No. 599
of 2026, the parties in the said proceedings and the order is quoted herein
under:

"1. Maqsood Alam Son of Sarfaraaz,
2. Mehfooz Alam Son of Sarfaraaz,
3. Akhtar Rasool Son of Sarfaraaz,
4. Aftab Alam Son of Sarfaraaz,
All are R/o of Village Kotwa, Police Station Lohta, Tehsil-Sadar, District-
Varanasi.

...Revisionists

VERSUS

1. State of U. P. through Principal Secretary (Home), U.P. at Lucknow.
2. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, District- Varanasi,
3. Zahid Farheed Son of Naseem Ahmad,
4. Sohail Mahmood Son of Naseem Ahmad,
5. Rizwanujma Son of Hazi Khurshid,
6. Aashiq Jamal Son of Hazi Khurshid,
7. Zaquir Hussain Son of Abdul Aziz,

Opposite party no. 3 to 7 are resident of Village Kotwa, Pargana
CAPL No. 6914 of 2026
2

Kaswaraza, Tehsil- Sadar, District- Varanasi.

.......... Opposite parties

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA
for the State-opposite party nos. 1 and 2 and the learned
counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 3 to 7.
2. The present criminal revision is preferred against the
order dated 19.1.2026, passed by the Joint Magistrate/Sub-
Divisional Magistrate (Sadar), District Varanasi in Case No.
50869 of 2025 (Computerized Case No. T202514700150869
(State Vs. Maqsood Alam and others), under Section 152 of
BNSS, 2023, Police Station Lohta, District Varanasi.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the
proceeding for dispossession under Section 67 of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2026 are also subjudice before the competent
court of law. Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied
at page 6 of the impugned order that the revisionists had
purchased Aarazi No. 921-Ga by way of two sale deeds of
respectively 2142 sq. feet and 700 sq. feet, total 2842 sq. feet
and rest of the land are ancestral Abadi land of the
revisionists. In the attached said Abadi, registered sale deeds
of aforesaid area of 2842 sq. feets were executed in the year
1976 and 1978 respectively and since then they are in
possession. The Lekhpal has submitted report without proper
measurement. Learned counsel for the revisionists further
submitted that regarding Aarazi No. 993 situated in village
Kotwa which is a Naveen Parti land, a suit for dispossession
under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code is pending before
the court of Tehsildar (Judicial), Sadar, District Varanasi,
hence two cases could not proceed for the same matter.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 3 to 7 has
submitted that both the land are separate in this matter. The
revisionists had made encroachment on public road. The
proceedings has been initiated on the basis of opposite party-
Zahid Fareed, who is not the owner but claims to be
neighbour and that the road are being obstructed. The
proceedings under Section 152 of BNSS is about Aarazi No.
993, whereas proceeding under Section 67 is also about
Aarazi No. 993.
5. Prima facie, it appears that land in dispute is Aarazi No.
993 where proceedings for dispossession is also subjudice
before the competent court of law under Section 67 of the
CAPL No. 6914 of 2026
3

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, hence two separate proceedings is
not appeared to be in consonance with the law.
6. The matter requires consideration.
7. Learned AGA appearing for the State as well as learned
counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 3 to 7 are hereby
directed to file counter affidavit within three weeks.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within next two weeks
thereafter.
8. List after five weeks.
9. Meanwhile, further operation of impugned order dated
19.1.2026, passed by the Joint Magistrate/Sub-Divisional
Magistrate (Sadar), District Varanasi in Case No. 50869 of
2025 (Computerized Case No. T202514700150869) (State
Vs. Maqsood Alam and others), under Section 152 of BNSS,
2023, Police Station Lohta, District Varanasi, would remain
stayed. However, it is made clear that this order would not
affect the proceedings under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue
Code and that has to be decided in accordance with law."

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has further invited attention of the Court
towards the order dated 19.01.2026 passed in Case No. 50869 of 2025,
computerized Case No. T202514700150869, State Versus Maqsood Alam
and others, under Section 152 of the BNSS, 2023, according to which, the
subject matter in the said proceedings was the Arazi No. 993 and the order
passed by the Joint Magistrate / Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Varanasi dated
19.01.2026 came to be stayed on 04.02.2026, however, while further inviting
attention towards para-8, it is contended that the applicant happens to be the
owner of the Arazi No. 921, area 2842 square meter situate at Village
Kotwa, Pargana Kaswaraza, Tehsil - Sadar, District Varanasi.

4. Learned counsel(s) for the applicants submits that first of all the land of
the applicant being Arazi No. 921-Ga, area 2842 square meter is distinct and
different from Arazi No. 993, thus, there is no question of demolition and
there happens to be an additional factor also that even otherwise also the
construction on Arazi No. 993 could not have been demolished, particularly,
when there was an interim order operating in the criminal revision in that
regard. He further submits that the opposite parties on being inquired and
asked as to why the constructions made over the Arazi No. 921-Ga have
been demolished, the answer of the opposite party was under misconception.
Thus, according to the learned counsel(s) for the applicants, there happens to
be willful defiance of the orders of the Court.
CAPL No. 6914 of 2026
4

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel(s) for the
applicant and perused the record carefully.

6. Apparently, with respect to Arazi No. 993, there happened to be an order
of the Joint Magistrate / Deputy District Magistrate, Sadar, Varanasi dated
19.01.2026 under Section 152 of the BNSS, 2023 which came to be
challenged in Criminal Revision No. 599 of 2026 on 04.02.2026 wherein the
said order was stayed.

7. Though according to the learned counsel(s) for the applicants, the
applicants own Arazi No. 921Ga, area 2842 square meter which is separate
and distinct from Arazi No. 993 but in the garb and guise of the order dated
19.01.2026, the constructions have been demolished, thus, there has been
willful defiance of the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 599 of 2026,
though looks attractive at the first blush but it may not detain the Court,
particularly, when the remedy lies elsewhere regarding demolition.

8. The said factor assumes significance once the restraint order was with
respect to Arazi No. 993 and the applicants own as per the claims set up by
him Arazi No. 921Ga, area 2842. Once the same stood demolished for
whatever reasons misconception or otherwise then the applicant has remedy
before appropriate forum and definitely, it cannot be termed to be a case of
contempt in that regard.

9. Accordingly, the contempt application is consigned to record, leaving it
open to the applicant to question the same before appropriate forum.

October 1, 2026
Ashu
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…