Zafar Khan vs Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate Varanasi 6 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2703 of 2026

¶3

Zafar Khan

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Others	Magistrate Varanasi 6	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Aftab Alam, Manoj Mohammad Akaram :	Kumar, Quazi

¶6

Court No. - 9

¶7

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

¶8

The writ Court on 28.11.2025 in Writ-C No. 41972 of 2025 had passed the following order;

¶9

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

¶10

This writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief:

¶11

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus commanding respondents restraining them from demolishing the construction of the petitioner without acquiring the property of the petitioner.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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 petitioner forcing him to demolish his house or leave his house or hand over his house to the government."

¶15

CAPL No. 2703 of 2026

¶16

2

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

CAPL No. 2703 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

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 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.

¶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

A personal affidavit of District Magistrate and Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Varanasi has been filed today, which are taken on record. In paragraph no. 10 of the affidavit filed by District Magistrate it has been stated that no coercive action has been taken against the applicant, nor any proceeding for eviction or demolition is being undertaken in respect of House No. CK-43/154, Dalmandi, Varanasi.

¶31

As no proceedings are initiated against the applicant for vacating or demolishing the house in question, no case for contempt is made out. Contempt application stands dismissed.

¶32

May 7, 2026 Shekhar

¶33

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

¶34

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

Zafar Khan v. Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate Varanasi 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zafar Khan v. Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate Varanasi 6 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

Sanjeev Gupta and 2 Others vs Lokesh M., Chief Executive Officer, Noida

Chandra Pal vs Dr. Basant Agrawal, Additional District Magistrate (Finance / Revenue) / Competent Officer, Land Ac

Anupam Sharma vs Ram Shankar Verma, District Panchayat Raj Officer, Fatehpur

Nizam Ali vs Sri. Satyendra Kumar and 6 Others

Smt. Priti Agrawal vs Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate Varanasi and 6 Others

Mohd Ashfaque vs Sri Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate and 6 Others