Javed Iqbal Vs Shri Satyendra Kumar Posted as District Magistrate and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1516 of 2026

¶3

Javed Iqbal

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
Shri Satyendra Kumar Posted As District Magistrate And 4 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Mohammad Khalid :

¶6

Court No. - 9

¶7

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

¶8

Personal affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 1 today is taken on record.

¶9

The writ Court on 2.9.2025 while disposing of Writ-C No. 30323 of 2025 had passed the following order;

¶10

"1. Heard Shri Mohammad Khalid, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Suresh Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State and Shri Vineet Sankalp, Advocate, representing the respondent No. 5.

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :-

¶12

"A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refrain from forcing the petitioners to remove, demolish or execute to sign willful agreement to handing over their property Nos. CK40/50, CK-69/26, CK-43/186 situated in Mohalla Resham Katra, Ghughrani Gali, Dalmandi, Varanasi to the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 without adopting to lawful procedure as provided under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶13

B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to pass appropriate order on the application of the petitioners dated 18.5.2025.

¶14

CAPL No. 1516 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

C. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents be restrained from threatening by visiting the premises of the petitioners and forcing them to demolish their house nos. CK-40/50, CK-69/26, CK-43/186 situated in Mohalla Resham Katra, Ghughrani Gali, Dalmandi, Varanasi voluntarily and handover possession to the respondent authorities."

¶17

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).

¶18

For ready reference, the operative portion of order dated 20.05.2025 is quoted as under:-

¶19

"5. The District Magistrate, Varanasi has filed his affidavit on behalf of the State-respondents. The stand taken therein is that the StateGovernment 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:-

¶20

"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

¶21

CAPL No. 1516 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

herewith and marked as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit.

¶24

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.

¶25

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."

¶26

Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State submits that the respondents would not disturb the possession of the petitioners nor demolish their constructions unless title over the same is acquired through voluntary transfer or by compulsory acquisition or any other mode recognized under law.

¶27

Keeping in mind the aforesaid stand, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the same."

¶28

So far as factual and legal aspect, the same is not disputed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶29

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)."

¶30

Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Nagar Nigam Varanasi states that Nagar Nigam Varanasi was not arrayed as a party in writ proceedings and only a notice has been issued by Nagar Nigam for demolishing the house in question as it is in a dilapidated condition. He further submits that no reply has been filed to the notice issued by Nagar Nigam.

¶31