HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1497 of 2026 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Personal affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 1 today is taken on record. 2. The writ Court on 21.5.2025 while disposing of Writ-C No. 16448 of 2025 had passed the following order; "1. Heard Sri Q.M. Akaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of a Government Order dated 31.03.2025 by which certain amount was sanctioned by the State Government for widening and beautification of six roads in District Varanasi. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 2 is owner of House No. CK43/113-A, Govindpura, Kalan, Dalmandi, Varanasi, petitioners no. 3 and 4 claim to be owner of House No. CK43/114 Dalmandi, Varanasi and petitioners no. 1 & 5 claim to be tenants of House Nos. CK39/74-76, Raja Katra, Dalmandi, Varanasi and CK43/121, Mohalla Govindpura Kalan, Dalmandi Road, District Varanasi. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents in pursuance of Government Order dated 31.03.2025 are threatening to demolish their constructions without acquiring their property/rights as per provisions of law. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved herein is covered by order dated 20.5.2025 passed in Writ C No. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Khalid Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bipin Bihari Pandey Mohammad Tariq Khan .....Applicant(s) Shri Satyendra Kumar Posted As District Magistrate And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 12319 of 2025 (Shahnawaz Khan vs. State of U.P. and Others). 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. CAPL No. 1497 of 2026 2 6. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by 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. 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 Varanasi states that Nagar Nigam Varanasi was not arrayed as a party in writ proceedings and only a notice has been issued by Nagar Nigam for demolishing the house in question as it is in a dilapidated condition. He further submits that no reply has been filed to the notice issued by Nagar Nigam. 4. From perusal of the order of writ Court as well as material on record, I find that no case for contempt is made out as Nagar Nigam Varanasi was not arrayed as a party in writ petition filed by the applicant. 5. Contempt application stands dismissed. May 6, 2026 Shekhar CAPL No. 1497 of 2026 3 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad