HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 7159 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. A personal affidavit of District Magistrate, Varanasi has been filed today, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General as well as Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel. 3. The applicant, before this Court, had approached the writ Court through Writ-C No.38204 of 2025 which was disposed of on 13.11.2025 and following order was passed:- "1. Heard Shri Q.M. Akaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned Government Order dated 31.03.2025 and order dated 30.07.2025 issued by Joint Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Government, U.P. at Lucknow. It is further prayed to command the respondents to grant fair compensation, rehabilitation and relocation to the petitioners and similarly placed tenants/shopkeepers under the Right to Fair Compensation and Resettlement Act 2013 (in short the 'Act 2013') and also not to demolish the shops and structures of the petitioners, without due process of law. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akanksha Srivastava, Quazi Mohammad Akaram, Ziauddin Farooqui Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhtar Ali .....Applicant(s) Sri Satyendra Singh, District Magistrate And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 3. 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).4. For ready reference, the operative portion of order dated 20.05.2025 is quoted as under:- "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:- "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. 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. 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 CAPL No. 7159 of 2025 2 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." 6. 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." 5. So far as factual and legal aspect, the same is not disputed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 6. 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). 4. The writ Court relying upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench rendered in case of Shahnawaz Khan vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-C No.12319 of 2025, disposed of the writ petition filed by the applicant and held that the respondents would not disturb the possession of the applicant, nor demolish his construction unless the title over the same is acquired through voluntary transfer or by compulsory acquisition or any other mode recognized under law. 5. Pursuant to the order of the writ Court, the owner of the property executed a sale deed in favour of the State on 13.11.2025. In paragraph 10 of the personal affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi, it has been stated that the House No.D-50/209, D-1 situated at Mohalla- Kajipura Kalan, Ward Dashashwarmedgh, Daalmandi, District- Varanasi was jointly owned by Smt. Gajala Parveen, Smt. Shaista Khan, Smt. Tasneem Begum, Sri Jisan Raza, Smt. Nusrat Raza and Smt. Sana Raza, who had executed a sale deed on 13.11.2025 in favour of Public Works Department, Varanasi and a sum of Rs.1,01,84,907.00/- has been paid to them. 6. Once, the sale deed has been executed in favour of the State by the owners CAPL No. 7159 of 2025 3 of the property in question, no case for contempt is made out as the writ Court has specifically stated that the applicant would not be dispossessed from the property in question, unless the title is transferred voluntarily or by compulsory acquisition. Once, the title has been passed on to the State after the execution of the sale deed by the owners of the property in question, no case for contempt is made out. 7. Contempt application is misconceived and the same stands dismissed. May 6, 2026 SK Goswami CAPL No. 7159 of 2025 4 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad