HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1226 of 2026 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. The writ Court in Writ-C No. 39254 of 2025 on 12.11.2025 had passed the following order; "1. Heard Mr. Quazi Mohammad Akaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred inter alia for the following reliefs:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Govt. Order dated 31.03.2025 and Order dated 30.07.2025 issued by Joint Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Government, U.P. Lucknow.(Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). II. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to proceed with any demolition of shops and structures of the petitioners and eviction without due process of law. III. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to frame a policy/scheme for tenants/shopkeepers in Daalmandi Market, for their safeguard and rehabilitation. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Asadulah, Quazi Mohammad Akaram, Shoar Mohammad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bipin Bihari Pandey Nafees Ahmad .....Applicant(s) Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate Varanasi And 5 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 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 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. CAPL No. 1226 of 2026 2 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 Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief 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)." 2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that Nagar Nigam Varanasi had issued a demolition notice on 17.4.2026 which has been replied by the applicant on 18.4.2026. 3. Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Nagar Nigam Varanasi states that Nagar Nigam Varanasi was not impleaded as a party during writ proceedings and only notice has been issued by Nagar Nigam. He further submits that no demolition activity has been carried out till date. 4. In view of the said fact, as no demolition has been carried out by the State authorities and already a reply has been submitted by the applicant on 18.4.2026 to the notice issued by Nagar Nigam Varanasi, contempt application is disposed of requiring the Nagar Nigam Varanasi to proceed CAPL No. 1226 of 2026 3 with the reply submitted by the applicant on 18.4.2026 and take a final call on the same, in accordance with law, within next two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. May 6, 2026 Shekhar CAPL No. 1226 of 2026 4 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad