Zulfikar Ali Vohra vs Sri Satyendra Kumar, District ...

1. The applicant, before this Court, claims to a tenant of Shop No. CK-42/7, Chahmama, Ghughrani Gali, Dalmandi, District-Varanasi. The original allottee of the shop is one Gulam Rasool. Apprehending the demolition of the shop, the applicant has approached this Court through Writ-C No. 31841 of 2025 which was disposed of on 12.09.2025 and following order was passed:-

"1. The petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from dispossessing them from their shops under the tenancy without adopting the procedure prescribed by law.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are tenants of different buildings situated in Dalmandi, Varanasi. The respondents are undertaking widening of the road in the said market and they have marked part of their property with red colour and are threatening to demolish the premises in their tenancy, without paying any compensation and also without initiating any acquisition proceedings so far.

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 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.

6. It is clarified that the instant order would not be treated to be expression of any opinion by this Court regarding the petitioner's being lawful occupants/tenants of the premises in case there is any dispute between the petitioners and the landlords, or actual owners of the property. "

2. A personal affidavit of District Magistrate, Varanasi has been filed wherein in paragraph no. 10, it has been stated that no action for eviction or demolition has been taken by authorities against the applicant in respect of the said shop. It has further been averred in the affidavit that applicant has not been threatened to vacate his shop. Further, the applicant is required to submit his document establishing the ownership over the said property.

3. Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned counsel appearing of Nagar Nigam, Varanasi has filed affidavit of opposite party no. 4 and submitted that Nagar Nigam was not a party in the writ petition but has been arrayed as opposite party in the contempt proceedings.

4. In view of said fact, as the State has come up with an affidavit stating that no demolition activity has been carried out as far as shop of the applicant is concerned, no case for contempt is made out. The contempt application stands dismissed.

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

May 7, 2026

(V. S. SINGH)