Dismissed¶28

Riyazuddin v. Sri Satyendra Kumar and 6 Others

Allahabad HC14 May 2026CAPL/2962/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.), Contempt Application (CIVIL) No. 2962 of 2026 [CAPL No. 2962 of 2026], Riyazuddin v. Sri Satyendra Kumar & 6 Others, decided May 14, 2026 — contempt dismissed, no case made out; tenant-demolition dispute, Dalmandi, Varanasi; directions to District Magistrate, Varanasi and Varanasi Development Authority; relates to Writ-C No.42187 of 2025 and Mukhtar Ahmad, Writ C No.40143 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Contempt application dismissed; District Magistrate, Varanasi directed to decide the applicant's January 2026 representation within two weeks; applicant allowed one week to file reply to the Varanasi Development Authority notice, to be decided by the Secretary of the Authority within the next two weeks. ¶28

Riyazuddin vs Sri Satyendra Kumar and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2962 of 2026

¶3

Riyazuddin

¶4

.....Applicant(s) Versus Sri Satyendra Kumar And 6 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Quazi Mohammad Akaram, Shoar Mohammad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶5

Court No. - 9

¶6

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

¶7

Applicant is a tenant of a Shop No.CK 69/27, Resham Katra, Dalmandi, Varanasi. Apprehending the demolition of his shop, applicant had approached this Court through Writ-C No.42187 of 2025 which was disposed of on 01.12.2025 and following order was passed:-

¶8

"1. Heard Shri Manish Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents. 2. 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). 3. For ready reference, the order dated 24.11.2025 is quoted herein below:-

¶9

"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.

¶10

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

¶11

3. 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 / 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

¶12

CAPL No. 2962 of 2026

¶13

¶14

of the same in accordance with law."

¶15

4. So far as factual and legal aspect is concerned, the same is not disputed by Shri Manish Singh, 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).

¶16

5. 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.

¶17

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

¶18

The Division Bench had granted time to the applicant to move a representation which was to be decided by the District Magistrate, Varanasi.

¶19

A personal affidavit of District Magistrate, Varanasi has been filed today, which is taken on record.

¶20

In paragraph 10 of the said personal affidavit, it has been stated that the order of the writ Court has not been disobeyed, and it is the Varanasi Development Authority who has issued a notice on 17.04.2026.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant states that he has already filed a representation before District Magistrate, Varanasi on 29.01.2026 which is pending consideration.

¶22

Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the contempt application on the ground that the Varanasi Development Authority has issued a notice on 17.04.2026 and it was not made a party in the writ petition.

¶23

In view of the said facts, no case for contempt is made out. However, District Magistrate, Varanasi is hereby directed to decide the

¶24

CAPL No. 2962 of 2026

¶25

¶26

representation moved by the applicant in the month of January, 2026 within a period of two weeks from today.

¶27

Further, the applicant shall have one week's time to file reply to the notice issued by Varanasi Development Authority, which would be decided by the Secretary of the Authority, within a period of next two weeks.

¶28

Contempt application stands dismissed .

¶29

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

¶30

May 14, 2026 SK Goswami

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Riyazuddin v. Sri Satyendra Kumar and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riyazuddin 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parmanand Dubey Vs B.L. Chaurasiya, Deputyd Director of Education and Another

Deepak Kumar Dwivedi Vs Prem Prakash, Executive Engineer, Electricity Disribution Division-Iii, Civil Line, Moradabad

Parvati Vs Dr. Vandana Mishra, Sub Divisional Officer, Gunaur

Mahesh Narayan Patariya vs Satya Prakash, Presently Posted as District Magistrate /Collector

Bani Singh and 20 Others vs Sri Akhilesh Kumar Chaurasia

Sahab Lal vs Dr Pc Saxena, Director, Ayurved Services