Rahul Arora and Another Vs Sri Satyendra Kumar and 5 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2631 of 2026

Rahul Arora And Another

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

¶5

Court No. - 9

¶6

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

¶7

The writ Court on 21.5.2025 in Writ-C No. 16448 of 2025 had passed the following order;

¶8

"1. Heard Sri Q.M. Akaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶9

The petitioners have prayed for quashing of a Government

¶10

Order dated 31.03.2025 by which certain amount was sanctioned by the State Government for widening and beautification of six roads in District Varanasi. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 2 is owner of House No. CK43/113-A, Govindpura, Kalan, Dalmandi, Varanasi, petitioners no. 3 and 4 claim to be owner of House No. CK43/114 Dalmandi, Varanasi and petitioners no. 1 & 5 claim to be tenants of House Nos. CK39/74-76, Raja Katra, Dalmandi, Varanasi and CK43/121, Mohalla Govindpura Kalan, Dalmandi Road, District Varanasi. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents in pursuance of Government Order dated 31.03.2025 are threatening to demolish their constructions without acquiring their property/rights as per provisions of law.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the

¶12

CAPL No. 2631 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

controversy involved herein is covered by order dated 20.5.2025 passed in Writ C No. 12319 of 2025 (Shahnawaz Khan vs. State of U.P. and Others).

¶15

The operative part of the said order is extracted below:-

¶16

"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:-

¶17

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/??-132015-20(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.

¶18

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.

¶19

CAPL No. 2631 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

Today a personal affidavit of District Magistrate, Varanasi and Municipal Commissioner have been filed which are taken on record. In paragraph no. 10 of the personal affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi it has been stated that the property in question i.e. House No. CK-39/74, 76 Govindpura Shahar Khas, Dalmandi, Varanasi was jointly owned by Sri Maharaja Kasiraj Dharm Karya Nidhi Trust as well as Smt. Anita Tibrewal, Smt. Garima Jaiswal and Sri Lalit Kumar Srimali. It is further stated that Sri Maharaja Kasiraj Dharm Karya Nidhi Trust has sold its portion of the property alongwith structure in favour of Public Works Department Varanasi on 15.11.2025 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,68,14,899/-, copy of the sale-deed has been appended as anneuxre No. 2 to the personal affidavit of opposite party no. 1. Further, in paragraph no. 11 it has been stated that none of the residents have been intimidated or coerced for vacating the property in question and administration is following the due process of law for taking the possession of house in question.

¶26

CAPL No. 2631 of 2026

¶27

4

¶28

As the sale-deed has been executed by a co-owner of the property in question, order of writ Court has been partly complied to the extent that one sale-deed has been executed in favour of Public Works Department Varanasi and State is not proceeding as far as other occupants are concerned, no case for contempt is made out.

¶29

Contempt application stands dismissed.

¶30

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

¶31

May 7, 2026

¶32

Shekhar

¶33

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

Rahul Arora and Another v. Sri Satyendra Kumar and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Arora and Another v. Sri Satyendra Kumar and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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