AKHTAR ALIversusSRI SATYENDRA SINGH, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 7159 of 2025

Akhtar Ali
                                                                    .....Applicant(s)
                                       Versus

Sri Satyendra Singh, District Magistrate And
Another                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                              Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Akanksha                  Srivastava,          Quazi
                                Mohammad                   Akaram,          Ziauddin
                                Farooqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

Court No. - 9
                 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. A personal affidavit of District Magistrate, Varanasi has been filed today,
which is taken on record.

2. 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.

3. The applicant, before this Court, had approached the writ Court through
Writ-C No.38204 of 2025 which was disposed of on 13.11.2025 and
following order was passed:-

     "1. Heard Shri Q.M. Akaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri
     Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel 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.
                                                           CAPL No. 7159 of 2025
                              2


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
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
                                                                CAPL No. 7159 of 2025
                                   3


     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).

4. The writ Court relying upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench rendered
in case of Shahnawaz Khan vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-C
No.12319 of 2025, disposed of the writ petition filed by the applicant and
held that the respondents would not disturb the possession of the applicant,
nor demolish his construction unless the title over the same is acquired
through voluntary transfer or by compulsory acquisition or any other mode
recognized under law.

5. Pursuant to the order of the writ Court, the owner of the property executed
a sale deed in favour of the State on 13.11.2025. In paragraph 10 of the
personal affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi, it has been
stated that the House No.D-50/209, D-1 situated at Mohalla- Kajipura Kalan,
Ward Dashashwarmedgh, Daalmandi, District- Varanasi was jointly owned
by Smt. Gajala Parveen, Smt. Shaista Khan, Smt. Tasneem Begum, Sri Jisan
Raza, Smt. Nusrat Raza and Smt. Sana Raza, who had executed a sale deed
on 13.11.2025 in favour of Public Works Department, Varanasi and a sum of
Rs.1,01,84,907.00/- has been paid to them.

6. Once, the sale deed has been executed in favour of the State by the owners
                                                                                               CAPL No. 7159 of 2025
                                                                     4


                                    of the property in question, no case for contempt is made out as the writ
                                    Court has specifically stated that the applicant would not be dispossessed
                                    from the property in question, unless the title is transferred voluntarily or by
                                    compulsory acquisition. Once, the title has been passed on to the State after
                                    the execution of the sale deed by the owners of the property in question, no
                                    case for contempt is made out.

                                    7. 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