Syed Zafar Mehendi Vs Srisatyendra Kumar and 5 Others

Apprehending demolition of property in question, applicant, who is a tenant, had approached this Court through Writ-C No. 113 of 2026 which was disposed of on 8.1.2026 in following terms;

¶10

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.

¶11

At the outset, Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel apprises the Court that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the coordinate Bench in Writ C No.40143 of 2025 (Mukhtar Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and 2 others).

¶12

For ready reference, the order dated 24.11.2025 is quoted herein below:-

¶13

"1. Petitioner claims to be tenant and is under threat of the demolition of the house of the land lord in a Dalmandi area of city of Varanasi where the road widening is taking place at the end of the State-respondents and the local authorities.

¶14

In our considered view, the owner of the property would be the real aggrieved person.

¶15

In the circumstances, we dispose of this petition with direction to the petitioner to approach the respondent no.2 and 3 through his land owner /

¶16

CAPL No. 2483 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

land lord for the grievance against the demolition and protection of his tenancy and we further provide that in the event landlord approaches the respondent authority, it will consider his representation and shall dispose of the same in accordance with law."

¶19

So far as factual and legal aspect is concerned, the same is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he submits that some time may be accorded to file the representation through his land owner/landlord before the competent authority for redressal of his grievance in the light of the order passed in the case of Mukhtar Ahmad (supra).

¶20

We are in respectful agreement with the coordinate Bench order passed in Mukhtar Ahmad' case (supra). However, we observe that in case the petitioner approaches the respondent authority through his land owner/landlord for the grievance against the demolition and protection of his tenancy within two weeks from today, it will consider his representation and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. "

¶22

From perusal of the order of writ Court, it is clear that the Court had permitted the applicant to file a reply through his landlord/land owner before the competent authority, which was to be decided.

¶23

According to applicant's counsel a representation has been moved, which is pending consideration, copy of which has been appended as annexure No. 2 to the affidavit to the contempt application.

¶24

Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned CSC appearing for Nagar Nigam Varanasi submits that Nagar Nigam was not a party in writ petition and no notice has been issued by Nagar Nigam to the applicant.

¶25

Personal affidavit of the District Magistrate, Varanasi has been filed wherein it has been stated that the house in question is not being demolished by the State authorities.

¶26

As the representation, filed pursuant to the direction of writ Court, is

¶27

CAPL No. 2483 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

pending consideration, District Magistrate, Varanasi is directed to proceed with the same and take a final call, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from today.

¶30

In view of the said facts, no case for contempt is made out. Contempt application stands dismissed.

¶31

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

¶32

May 7, 2026

¶33

Shekhar

¶34

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

Syed Zafar Mehendi v. Srisatyendra Kumar and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Zafar Mehendi v. Srisatyendra Kumar 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

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