HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2214 of 2026 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. The applicant, before this Court, claims to be owner of House No. CK- 67/1-R, Vaka Mohalla Fathak Sheikh Saleem, Dalmandi, District- Varanasi. He had approached the writ Court through Writ-C No. 27801 of 2025 which was disposed of on 01.09.2025 and following order was passed:- "1. Heard Mr. Quazi Mohammad Akaram,, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Devesh Vikra, 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 vs. State of U.P. and others). The said order was relied upon by the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akanksha Srivastava, Arshi Begum, Quazi Mohammad Akaram Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Syed Reyaz Mahdi .....Applicant(s) Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate Varanasi And 5 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 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 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 CAPL No. 2214 of 2026 2 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)." 2. The present contempt proceeding has been initiated on the ground that obstruction has been caused to the house of the applicant and it has been damaged. 3. A personal affidavit of District Magistrate, Varanasi has been filed on 27.04.2026 wherein in para no. 10, it has been stated that House No. CK- 67/1 is the first floor of the building which was jointly owned by Smt. Meraj Fatma and Sri Ali Haidar. Both the owners have executed a sale- deed in favour of Public Works Department on 20.01.2026 and 25.01.2026 for sale consideration of Rs.58,57,784/-. Copy of sale-deed has been appended as annexure no. 2 and 3 to personal affidavit. Further, in para no. 11, it has been stated that shop of the applicant, which is on the ground floor, is numbered as CK-67/1-R and the same has not been demolished. 4. Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Nagar Nigam, Varanasi informs that Nagar Nigam, Varanasi was not a party in the writ petition and in the contempt proceeding, they have been arrayed as a party. 5. In view of said fact, no case for contempt is made out against the officers of Nagar Nigam, Varanasi. 6. Counsel for the applicant submitted that though the shop has not been demolished, obstruction has been caused as the debris of first floor has CAPL No. 2214 of 2026 3 been kept outside his shop which has affected his business and caused damage to the shop. He has relied upon the photographs appended as annexure-1 to rejoinder affidavit filed in the instant contempt application. 7. As the affidavit filed by District Magistrate has remained uncontroverted, the contempt application stands dismissed. 8. However, the District Magistrate, Varanasi is hereby directed to get all the debris, if any, lying before the shop of the applicant removed, within a week, from today. May 7, 2026 (V. S. SINGH) CAPL No. 2214 of 2026 4 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad