Allahabad High Court
MOHD HAMIDversusSRI SATYENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The contempt application was dismissed because the applicant’s shop was not demolished, so no contempt of the earlier order occurred.
Summary
The applicant, Mohd Hamid, sought to quash a government order and obtain compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, arguing that his shop should not be demolished without due process. The High Court had earlier disposed of his writ petition on the basis of the Shahnawaz Khan judgment, directing that no demolition could occur except after mutual consent or acquisition under the Act. The State purchased the upper floors of the building containing the applicant’s shop and demolished those floors, but left the first‑floor shop intact. The applicant filed a contempt application alleging that the State’s demolition violated the court’s earlier order. The Court examined the affidavits and found no evidence that the applicant’s shop was demolished and held that the State’s actions did not contravene the earlier order, thereby dismissing the contempt application.
Issues considered
- Whether the State’s demolition of the upper floors of the building, without the applicant’s consent, amounts to contempt of the earlier writ order.
- Whether the earlier writ order prohibiting demolition applies to the applicant’s first‑floor shop.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- contempt of court
- land acquisition
- Right to Fair Compensation and Resettlement Act 2013
- demolition
- consent
- writ petition
- compensation
- resettlement
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 7045 of 2025
Mohd Hamid
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Sri Satyendra Singh And Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Quazi Mohammad Akaram, Ziauddin
Farooqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C., Manoj Kumar Pandey
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned
Additional Advocate General as well as Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned
Chief Standing Counsel.
2. The applicant, before this Court, had approached the writ Court through
Writ-C No.39521 of 2025, wherein the writ Court on 13.11.2025 had
passed the following order:-
"1. Heard Sri Quazi Mohammad Akram, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash
the impugned Government Order dated 31.03.2025 and order dated
30.07.2025 issued by Joint Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Government, U.P. at
Lucknow. It is further prayed to command the respondents to grant fair
compensation, rehabilitation and relocation to the petitioners and
similarly placed tenants/shopkeepers under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Resettlement Act 2013 (in short the 'Act 2013') and
also not to demolish the shops and structures of the petitioners, without
due process of law.
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
CAPL No. 7045 of 2025
2
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).
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
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
CAPL No. 7045 of 2025
3
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). "
3. From perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the writ Court, it is clear
that the writ petition filed by the applicant was disposed of in terms of the
judgment rendered in case of Shahnawaz Khan vs. State of U.P. and
others, Writ-C No.12319 of 2025, wherein the writ Court had directed
that no demolition activity would be carried out for road widening except
after purchasing the property through mutual consent, or through
acquisition rules by acquiring the houses which are coming in way of
acquisition proceedings. The property in dispute is shop No.D-50/209
situated at Mohalla- Kajipura Kalan, Ward Dashashwarmedgh,
Daalmandi, District- Varanasi.
4. The shop of the applicant is situated at first floor in three story
building. The State authorities have purchased the second and third floor
of the Building D-50/209 from their owners, namely, Smt. Gajala
Parveen, Smt. Sahista Khan, Smt. Tasmeen Begum, Shri Jeeshan Raza,
Smt. Nusrat Raza and Smt. Shana Raza.
5. The State, after purchasing the said property through a registered sale
CAPL No. 7045 of 2025
4
deed on 13.11.2025, had demolished second and third floor of the
building, but left the shop of the applicant situated at first floor. The said
fact has been stated in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the personal affidavit
filed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi.
6. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant, wherein in
paragraphs 13 and 14, reply to the paragraphs 11 and 12 of the personal
affidavit has been given. In paragraph 13, he has stated that no consent
has been given by the applicant for demolishing the building, nor the
consent given by the owners of second and third floor is not binding upon
the applicant. There is no averment that the shop of the applicant situated
at first floor has been demolished. There is a specif case of the State that it
has not touched upon the shop of the applicant which is on the first floor
of the building D-50/209.
7. Once, the State has specifically stated in its affidavit that it has not
touched upon the shop of the applicant, no case for contempt is made out.
8. Contempt application is misconceived and the same stands dismissed.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
May 6, 2026
SK Goswami
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…