MOHAMAD ZUHAIBversusSRI SATYENDRA KUMAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ANOTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 7357 of 2025

Mohamad Zuhaib
                                                                                 .....Applicant(s)
                                               Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Manoj Kumar, Quazi Mohammad
                                Akaram, Ziauddin Farooqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : 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.40468 of 2025, wherein the writ Court on 26.11.2025 had
passed the following order:-

     "1. Heard Mr. Quazi Mohammad Akaram,, learned counsel for the petitioner and Fuzail
     Ahmad Ansari, learned 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 petitioner

     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 petitioner, 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 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).
                                                                        CAPL No. 7357 of 2025
                                     2


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 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.
                                                                            CAPL No. 7357 of 2025
                                         3


     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 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
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
                                                                                              CAPL No. 7357 of 2025
                                                                    4


                                    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