Javed Akhtar Vs Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate and 5 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2469 of 2026

¶3

Javed Akhtar

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate And 5 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aftab Alam, Manoj Kumar, Quazi Mohammad Akaram Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶6

Court No. - 9

¶7

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

¶8

Applicant before this Court was one of the party in Writ-C No. 41227 of 2025 which was disposed of on 1.12.2025 in following terms;

¶9

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri N.K. Panday, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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).

¶11

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

¶12

"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

¶13

CAPL No. 2469 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

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:-

¶16

"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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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."

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

So far as factual and legal aspect is concerned, the same could not be disputed by learned Standing Counsel.

¶22

CAPL No. 2469 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

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.

¶25

The present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as have been given in Shahnawaz Khan (Supra)."

¶26

Personal affidavit of the District Magistrate, Varanasi has been filed wherein in paragraph no. 10 it has been stated that till date no action for eviction or demolition has been taken by the State authority against the applicant in respect of House No. CK-43/116 Govindpura, Dalmandi, Varanasi.

¶27

Sri B.B. Pandey, learned CSC appearing for Nagar Nigam, submits that a notice has been issued by Nagar Nigam and Nagar Nigam Varanasi was not a party in writ proceedings.

¶28

According to applicant's counsel, reply to the said notice has been submitted by the applicant.

¶29

After hearing learned counsel for parties and perusal of record, I find that as reply has been submitted by the applicant to the notice issued by Nagar Nigam Varanasi, Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Varanasi is directed to proceed with the same and decide the matter, in accordance with law, on the basis of reply submitted by the applicant, within a period of next three weeks.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid, as the shop in question has not been demolished by the State authorities till date, no case for contempt is made out. Contempt application stands dismissed.

¶31

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

¶32

May 7, 2026 Shekhar

¶33

Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Javed Akhtar v. Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed Akhtar v. Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Girish Chandra Dubey Vs Dr. Pawan Kumar Arun, Director General Medical & Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan and Another

Vijay Shankar Yadav Vs Shri Anupam Mishra

Arun Kumar Pandey Vs Shrikrishn Upadhyay, Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) Vikas Khand Majhawan

Shaheed Khan vs Avinash Singh, District Magistrate, Bareilly

Ishwarpal and 4 Others vs Mr Ajeet Kumar Singh

Krishna Kumar Srivastava vs Shri Ravi Kumar Gupta and Another