HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2722 of 2026 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Applicant had approached this Court through Writ-C No. 42786 of 2025 which was disposed of on 11.12.2025 in following terms; "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs:- " 1. Issue a writ, order or direction in respondents restraining them from demolishing the construction of the petitioners without acquiring the property of the petitioners. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus commanding Respondents to restraining them from forcing the petitioners to remove/demolish the construction of the petitioners. " 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are the owner of the land and the same dispute is already settled by the coordinate Bench vide judgment 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 of this Court while passing the order dated 12.09.2025 in Writ C No.31841 of 2025 (Mohammad Faheem and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akanksha Srivastava, Quazi Mohammad Akaram Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Mohd Ashfaque .....Applicant(s) Sri Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate And 6 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 4. For ready reference, 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 CAPL No. 2722 of 2026 2 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. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents fairly states that qua the landlord, he has no objection and the instant writ petition on their behalf may be disposed of in terms of the judgement passed in the case of Shahnawaz Khan (supra). 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. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of in the same terms as have been enumerated in the case of Shahnawaz Khan (supra)." 2. Applicant's counsel states that Nagar Nigam Varanasi had issued a notice to the applicant for demolition. 3. Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned CSC appearing for Nagar Nigam Varanasi submits that Nagar Nigam was not a party in writ petition and only a notice has been issued which till date, according to him, has not been replied by the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for applicant states that applicant has already replied to the said notice. 5. Personal affidavit filed by the District Magistrate Varanasi reveals that no action for demolition is being taken by the State authorities. 6. In view of the said facts, no case for contempt is made out. Contempt application stands dismissed. 7. However, in case any reply has been filed, as alleged by applicant's counsel, on 17.4.2026 to the notice issued by Nagar Nigam Varanasi, the CAPL No. 2722 of 2026 3 Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Varanasi shall take up the matter and decide the same, in accordance with law, considering the reply of the applicant, within a period of two weeks from today. May 7, 2026 Shekhar CAPL No. 2722 of 2026 4 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad