HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1062 of 2026 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State as well as Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for Nagar Nigam, Varanasi. 2. The applicant, before this Court along with other persons, had filed Writ-C No.16448 of 2025 which was disposed of on 21.05.2025 in terms of the decision rendered in case of Shahnawaz Khan vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-C No.12319 of 2025, and following order was passed:- "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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Quazi Mohammad Akaram, Shoar Mohammad Khan, Ziauddin Farooqui Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ateeq Ahmad Khan .....Applicant(s) Sri. Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate Varanasi And 5 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 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 CAPL No. 1062 of 2026 2 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 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. In the said writ petition, the State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Varanasi, Chairman, Public Works Department, Varanasi and District Magistrate, Varanasi were arrayed as respondents. 4. It appears from paragraph 11 of the affidavit to the contempt application that the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Varanasi had issued a notice on 31.01.2026 in exercise of power under Section 331(1)(2) of Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959. The said notice remained unattended, and a demolition was carried out by the Nagar Nigam on 09.02.2026 on the ground that the house in question was in a dilapidated condition. 5. In the affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.4 i.e. Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Varanasi, it has been stated that they were not the party in the writ petition filed by the applicant, nor they were aware of the said fact. Notice was issued on 31.01.2026, against which, no writ petition was filed by the applicant. 6. In view of the said fact, this Court finds that as there is no order of the writ Court against the Municipal Commissioner, CAPL No. 1062 of 2026 3 Varanasi, and the demolition has been carried out by the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi, no case for contempt is made out. 7. Contempt application is misconceived and the same stands dismissed. 8. Counsel for the applicant states that till date the applicant has not received any compensation for the land in question over which the house was standing, which has been demolished by Nagar Nigam. 9. Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submits that the applicant has not sought any compensation and the land is still lying vacant and the demolition has been carried out by the Nagar Nigam as the property in question was in dilapidated condition. May 6, 2026 SK Goswami CAPL No. 1062 of 2026 4 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad