HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2627 of 2026 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. The writ Court while disposing of Writ-C No. 36747 of 2025 on 28.10.2025 had passed the following order; "Heard Sri Quazi Mohammad Akaram, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri P.K. Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the Government Order dated 31.03.2025 and the order dated 30.07.2025 issued by the State Government for road widening purpose. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner's house stands at a place where the road widening has taken place yet the petitioner has not been issued with any notice and the respondents are proceeding to demolish the standing construction of the petitioner. He contends that the controversy is no more res integra in the light of order of this Court dated 20.05.2025 passed in Writ - C No. 12319 of 2025, Shahnawaz Khan v. State of U.P. & 3 Others. He further submits that recently a writ petition being Writ - C No. 16448 of 2025, Rahul Arora & 4 Others v. State of U.P. & 3 Others stood disposed of vide order dated 21.05.2025 and hence petitioner's case may also be disposed of in terms of the said order. Sri P.K. Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on a pointed query being made, submits that petitioner has not been able to submit any Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akanksha Srivastava, Arshi Begum, Quazi Mohammad Akaram Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rajesh Kumar Gandhi .....Applicant(s) Sri Satyendra Kumar, District Magistrate And 5 Others .....Opposite Party(s) document showing his title in respect of the property in question. However, he is not avers to the petition being disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court dated 21.05.2025 in Writ - C No. 16448 of 2025 as the petitioner would get an ample opportunity to put up his defence before final action is taken by the authority. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court dated 21.05.2025 in Writ - C No. 16448 of 2025." 2. A personal affidavit of the District Magistrate, Varanasi has been filed today which is taken on record. In paragraph no. 10 of the said affidavit it has been stated that the House No. CK-42/96 Chahmehma, Dalmandi, Varanasi was jointly owned by Mohd. Saleem, Mohd. Nayab and Mohd. Nawaj, who have executed sale-deed in favour of Public Works Department Varanasi on 14.1.2026 for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,29,98,528/-, copy of the sale-deed has been appended as anneuxre No. 2 to the personal affidavit filed by opposite party no. 1. 4. As the sale-deeds have been executed by the owners of the property in question. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Shahnawaz Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-C No. 12319 of 2025, had already held that the State authorities can only take the possession of the property either through voluntarily transfer or compulsory acquisition. In the instant case, the State had purchased the property in question through a valid sale-deed executed by the owners of the property, no case for contempt is made out. 5. Contempt application stands dismissed. May 7, 2026 Shekhar CAPL No. 2627 of 2026 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad