HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2483 of 2026 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Apprehending demolition of property in question, applicant, who is a tenant, had approached this Court through Writ-C No. 113 of 2026 which was disposed of on 8.1.2026 in following terms; "1. Heard 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:- "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. 2. In our considered view, the owner of the property would be the real aggrieved person. 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 / Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aftab Alam, Manoj Kumar, Quazi Mohammad Akaram Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Syed Zafar Mehendi .....Applicant(s) Srisatyendra Kumar And 5 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 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 of the same in accordance with law." 4. So far as factual and legal aspect is concerned, the same is not disputed by 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). 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. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. " 2. From perusal of the order of writ Court, it is clear that the Court had permitted the applicant to file a reply through his landlord/land owner before the competent authority, which was to be decided. 3. According to applicant's counsel a representation has been moved, which is pending consideration, copy of which has been appended as annexure No. 2 to the affidavit to the contempt application. 4. Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned CSC appearing for Nagar Nigam Varanasi submits that Nagar Nigam was not a party in writ petition and no notice has been issued by Nagar Nigam to the applicant. 5. Personal affidavit of the District Magistrate, Varanasi has been filed wherein it has been stated that the house in question is not being demolished by the State authorities. 6. As the representation, filed pursuant to the direction of writ Court, is CAPL No. 2483 of 2026 2 pending consideration, District Magistrate, Varanasi is directed to proceed with the same and take a final call, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from today. 7. In view of the said facts, no case for contempt is made out. Contempt application stands dismissed. May 7, 2026 Shekhar CAPL No. 2483 of 2026 3 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad