Javed Akhtar Vs Sri. Satyendra Kumar and 5 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2484 of 2026

Javed Akhtar

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

¶5

Court No. - 9

¶6

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

¶7

Applicant before this Court was one of the party in Writ-C No. 46093 of 2025 which was disposed of on 22.1.2026 in following terms;

¶8

"1. Heard Sri Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶9

The petitioners have preferred this petition, inter alia, for the following reliefs:-

¶10

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus commanding respondents restraining them from demolishing the construction of the petitioners without acquiring the property of the petitioners.

¶11

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus commanding Respondents to restraining them from forcing the petitioners to remove/demolish the construction of the petitioners.

¶12

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus commanding Respondents not to force the petitioners to sign the agreement of will fully giving the land of the petitioners to the government.

¶13

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus commanding Respondents to restrain them from giving any threat or visiting the premises of the petitioners forcing him to demolish his house or leave his house or hand over his house to the government."

¶14

CAPL No. 2484 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner apprises the Court that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgment 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 of this Court while passing the order dated 12.09.2025 in Writ-C No. 31841 of 2025 (Mohammad Faheem and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others).

¶17

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

¶18

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:-

¶19

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/F-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.

¶20

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.

¶21

15-That at present, there is no demolition drive going on adjacent

¶22

CAPL No. 2484 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

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.

¶25

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."

¶26

Having regard to the aforesaid, we dispose of the instant petition in same terms."

¶27

Personal affidavit of the District Magistrate, Varanasi has been filed wherein in paragraph no. 10 it has been stated that no action for eviction or demolition has been taken by the State authority against the applicant in respect of House No. CK-43/118 Mohalla Chahamma, Varanasi.

¶28

Learned counsel for applicant submits that after filing of contempt application a notice has been given by Varanasi Development Authority on 23.4.2026.

¶29

After hearing learned counsel for parties and perusal of record, I find that Varanasi Development Authority was not a party in writ proceedings, however, in case, any notice has been issued by Varanasi Development Authority, the applicant will have one week time to reply to the said notice and, thereafter, Varanasi Development Authority shall consider the same and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, within a period of next three weeks.

¶30

Contempt application stands disposed of.

¶31

May 7, 2026 Shekhar

¶32

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

¶33

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

Javed Akhtar v. Sri. Satyendra Kumar and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed Akhtar v. Sri. Satyendra 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

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