HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 7045 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. 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. 2. The applicant, before this Court, had approached the writ Court through Writ-C No.39521 of 2025, wherein the writ Court on 13.11.2025 had passed the following order:- "1. Heard Sri Quazi Mohammad Akram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing 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. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Quazi Mohammad Akaram, Ziauddin Farooqui Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C., Manoj Kumar Pandey Mohd Hamid .....Applicant(s) Sri Satyendra Singh And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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). 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 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 CAPL No. 7045 of 2025 2 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). " 3. From perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the writ Court, it is clear that the writ petition filed by the applicant was disposed of in terms of the judgment rendered in case of Shahnawaz Khan vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-C No.12319 of 2025, wherein the writ Court had directed that no demolition activity would be carried out for road widening except after purchasing the property through mutual consent, or through acquisition rules by acquiring the houses which are coming in way of acquisition proceedings. The property in dispute is shop No.D-50/209 situated at Mohalla- Kajipura Kalan, Ward Dashashwarmedgh, Daalmandi, District- Varanasi. 4. The shop of the applicant is situated at first floor in three story building. The State authorities have purchased the second and third floor of the Building D-50/209 from their owners, namely, Smt. Gajala Parveen, Smt. Sahista Khan, Smt. Tasmeen Begum, Shri Jeeshan Raza, Smt. Nusrat Raza and Smt. Shana Raza. 5. The State, after purchasing the said property through a registered sale CAPL No. 7045 of 2025 3 deed on 13.11.2025, had demolished second and third floor of the building, but left the shop of the applicant situated at first floor. The said fact has been stated in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the personal affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi. 6. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant, wherein in paragraphs 13 and 14, reply to the paragraphs 11 and 12 of the personal affidavit has been given. In paragraph 13, he has stated that no consent has been given by the applicant for demolishing the building, nor the consent given by the owners of second and third floor is not binding upon the applicant. There is no averment that the shop of the applicant situated at first floor has been demolished. There is a specif case of the State that it has not touched upon the shop of the applicant which is on the first floor of the building D-50/209. 7. Once, the State has specifically stated in its affidavit that it has not touched upon the shop of the applicant, no case for contempt is made out. 8. Contempt application is misconceived and the same stands dismissed. May 6, 2026 SK Goswami CAPL No. 7045 of 2025 4 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad