Shahbaz Alam vs Sri Satyendra Kumar, District ...

1. The personal affidavit filed today on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 is also taken on record.

2. The applicant before this Court had filed Writ-C No. 18221 of 2025 which was disposed of on 08.07.2025 in terms of the decision rendered in case of Shahnawaj 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 petitioner and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The petitioner has 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 petitioner is that mother of the petitioner namely Fahmida Khanam is owner of Shop as well as House No. CK69/29 and CK69/29A, Resham Katra, Chowk, Varanasi. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents in pursuance of Government Order dated 31.03.2025 are threatening to demolish his constructions without acquiring his 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/F-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 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. The present contempt application has been filed on the ground that the Nagar Nigam Varanasi had issued a demolition notice under Section 331(1)(2) on 31.01.2026 and thereafter, proceeded to demolish the house of the applicant.

4. From the perusal of the array of parties of the writ petition filed by the applicant, it is clear that the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Varanasi was not a party and only the State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, P.W.D., Public Works Department through Chief Engineer, Varanasi Circle, Varanasi, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, District Varanasi and District Magistrate, Varanasi were arrayed as parties. The notice issued by the Nagar Nigam was under Section 331(1)(2) of the U.P. Nagar Nigam Adhiniyam, 1959.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that despite the order of the writ Court passed on 08.07.2025, the Nagar Nigam has proceeded to demolish the house of the applicant. According to him, it was binding upon the Nagar Nigam before demolishing the same to have paid compensation as directed by the writ Court or should have entered into an agreement for mutual transfer through sale deed. According to him, neither the sale deed has been executed by the applicant in favor of the Nagar Nigam or State nor any compensation amount has been paid as per the Act of 2013. He has relied upon the Government Order of the State which requires that the compensation has to be paid for the land so acquired.

6. Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the house of the applicant has not been taken over by the State and the land is lying vacant after the demolition activity has been carried out.

7. Shri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Nigam submits that the Nagar Nigam was not a party in the writ petition filed by the applicant and as the house was in a dilapidated condition, the notice was issued. It was after the issuance of notice and the statutory period having been elapsed, the demolition activity was carried out. According to him, the said notice was never challenged before any Court and there is no interim order operating against the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi in respect of the demolition of the house which is in dilapidated condition.

8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the material, I find that that the demolition activity has been carried out pursuant to the notice dated 31.01.2026 issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam. The said notice was never challenged before any Court nor there is any interim order passed against the Nagar Nigam. According to the State Counsel, the State has not taken possession over the land nor is proceeding in the matter, nor was involved in the demolition activity. The matter, according to the State Counsel, is between the applicant and the Nagar Nigam.

9. However, learned Additional Advocate General has fairly stated that, in case, the applicant approaches for the payment of compensation or is ready to execute the sale deed in favor of the State, the State would proceed in accordance with law.

10. In view of the said fact, no case for contempt is made out. The contempt application stands dismissed.

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

May 6, 2026

A. V. Singh