Nizam Ali vs Sri. Satyendra Kumar and 6 Others

Applicant apprehending demolition of his house had approached this Court through Writ-C No. 41839 of 2025 wherein an order has been passed on 27.11.2025, which is as follows;

¶10

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

¶11

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

¶12

"(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus commanding Respondents to restrain them from giving any threat or visiting the

¶16

CAPL No. 2726 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

premises of the petitioners forcing him to demolish his house or leave his house or hand over his house to the government."

¶19

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).

¶20

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

¶21

"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:-

¶22

"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.

¶23

14-That widening and strengthening of the road in question would be completed after providing the compensation under the provisions of the

¶24

CAPL No. 2726 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

government order (supra), and if the land owner does not give his consent, then the provisions of the Act of 2013 would be applied.

¶27

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."

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

So far as factual and legal aspect, the same is not disputed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶31

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)."

¶32

In the writ petition filed by the applicant neither Nagar Nigam Varanasi nor Varanasi Development Authority were arrayed as party. According to applicant's counsel notice has been issued by Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Varanasi on 15.4.2026, which was replied by the applicant on 18.4.2026. Thereafter, a notice has been issued by Varanasi Development Authority on 17.4.2026.

¶33

Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned CSC appearing for Nagar Nigam Varanasi submits that Nagar Nigam was not a party in writ petition and Municipal Commissioner has been arrayed as a party in contempt proceedings, similar is case with Varanasi Development Authority.

¶34

CAPL No. 2726 of 2026

¶35

4

¶36

District Magistrate Varanasi had filed his personal affidavit stating that he has not proceeded with the matter of demolition and is not vacating the applicant nor demolishing the property in dispute.

¶37

As matter is pending consideration before Varanasi Development Authority, applicant is granted opportunity to file reply to the notice given by Varanasi Development Authority on 17.4.2026 within a week from today. Thereafter, Nagar Nigam Varanasi and Varanasi Development Authority shall consider the reply filed by the applicant and take a final call on the same, in accordance with law, within next three weeks.

¶38

No case for contempt is made out. Contempt application stands dismissed.

¶39

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

¶40

May 7, 2026 Shekhar

¶41

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

Nizam Ali v. Sri. Satyendra Kumar and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nizam Ali v. Sri. Satyendra Kumar and 6 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

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

Zafar Khan vs Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate Varanasi 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