HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2208 of 2026 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 4, Nagar Nigam, Varanasi, which is taken on record. 2. The applicant, before this Court, had approached the writ Court through Writ-C No. 36482 of 2025 which was disposed of on 27.10.2025 and following order was passed:- "1. Heard Mr. Quazi Mohammad Akaram,, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ambrish Shukla, 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, Jay Shree Tripathi, Quazi Mohammad Akaram Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Athar Ejaz And Another .....Applicant(s) Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate 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. 2208 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)." 3. A personal affidavit of District Magistrate, Varanasi has been filed wherein in paragraph no. 10, it has been stated that till date no action for eviction or demolition has been taken by the authorities against the applicant in respect of Shop No. CK-67/5, 6, 7, 8, Dalmandi, District-Varanasi. It has further been stated that applicants were never threatened to vacate their shop. Further, it has been stated that the applicants have not submitted any document establishing their ownership over the property. 4. Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned counsel states that Nagar Nigam, Varanasi is not a party in the writ petition filed by the applicant but the Municipal Commissioner has been arrayed as opposite party in contempt proceeding. 4. Once affidavit has been filed by district authorities stating that they are not proceeding with eviction proceeding, no case for contempt is made out. 5. This Court is a 'court of execution' and not a 'court of adjudication'. Contempt is not maintainable merely on apprehension. The party has to establish that the order of writ Court has been willfully disobeyed by the authorities. 6. Counsel for the applicant has tried to demonstrate through photographs that coercive action has been taken. However, he has failed to establish that the shop/house in question has been demolished by authorities, while authorities have come up with a specific case that no demolition activity has CAPL No. 2208 of 2026 3 been carried out. 7. This Court cannot do roving and fishing inquiry while exercising jurisdiction under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 8. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another 2022 (1) SCC 101 has held as under:- "8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "wilful" disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of wilfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to contend that the benefit of the order passed has not been actually given, through separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding. While dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigour when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings." 9. In view of said fact, the contempt application is misconceived and stands dismissed. May 7, 2026 (V. S. SINGH) CAPL No. 2208 of 2026 4 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad