HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1445 of 2026 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Personal affidavit filed by opposite party no. 1 today is taken on record. 2. The writ Court on 20.5.2025 while disposing of Writ-C No. 15201 of 2025 had passed the following order; "1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ali Jamal Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Rajeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from demolishing their construction without acquiring the same in accordance with law. The case of the petitioners is that they are owner of House no. C1/23 Nai Sarak Sheikh Saleem Pathak, District- Varanasi. The said house is situated in Dalmandi, Varanasi. The name of the petitioners is duly mutated in the municipal records. The State respondents are intending to demolish the construction of the petitioners and also dispossess them without any acquisition or payment of compensation. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved herein is covered by order dated 20.5.2025 passed today in connected Writ C No. 12319 of 2025 (Shahnawaz Khan vs. State of U.P. and Others). Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aftab Alam, Quazi Mohammad Akaram, Ziauddin Farooqui Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bipin Bihari Pandey Mohammad Saleem .....Applicant(s) Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate Varanasi And 5 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 4. The operative part of the said order is extracted below:- "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. 1445 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." 8. Having regard to the aforesaid, we dispose of the instant petition in same terms." 3. Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Nagar Nigam, states that Nagar Nigam Varanasi was not arrayed as a party in writ petition and only notices have been issued by Nagar Nigam for demolishing the structure in question and no reply to the said notice has been filed till date. 4. As Nagar Nigam was not arrayed as a party in writ proceedings, no case for contempt is made out. Contempt application stands dismissed. May 6, 2026 Shekhar CAPL No. 1445 of 2026 3 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad