Wajid Abbas vs Sri Satyendra Kumar, District ...

1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 2. This contempt application has been filed under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on the ground that opposite party has violated the order of writ Court dated 18.12.2025 passed in Writ-C No. 44681 of 2025, filed by father of petitioner. 3. According to applicant counsel, the writ petition filed by father of the applicant was disposed of in terms of judgment rendered in Writ C No. 12319 of 2025 (Shahnawaz Khan vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), decided on 20.05.2025. According to applicant counsel, House No. CK-43/172, Mohalla-Govindpura, Halka-Chouk, Varanasi was originally in the name of Dr. Majhar Hussain. After his death, the said house came into possession of his three sons namely Ali Abbas, Hasan Abbas and Jafar Abbas. All the three brothers had equal share in the property. After filing of the writ petition, Ali Abbas, unfortunately, died in the month of February, 2026. 4. The present contempt application has been preferred by Wajid Abbas son of Ali Abbas. In between, Hasan Abbas and Jafar Abbas have transferred their share through sale-deed dated 28.10.2025 in favour of State. 5. According to applicant counsel, suit for partition is pending consideration before Civil Court, Varanasi since 2012. 6. Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General contends that District Magistrate, Varanasi has already filed his personal affidavit before this Court wherein in para nos. 10, 11 and 12, it has been specifically mentioned that after purchasing 2/3 share of Hasan Abbas and Jafar Abbas, the State is not proceeding with demolition proceeding as 1/3 share is still occupation of Wajid Abbas, the present applicant, who is running a shop in name of 'Sonu Enterprises'. He further contends that if the portion of Hasan Abbas and Jafar Abbas is demolished, the shop would collapse. The said fact has been specifically stated in para nos. 11 and 12 of the affidavit. 7. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant wherein there is no specific denial to the fact stated in personal affidavit of District Magistrate, Varanasi. In para no. 8 of rejoinder affidavit, only vague reply has been given. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that no case for contempt is made out under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act as the State has come up with a case that it is not proceeding with demolition proceeding nor it has demolished the shop which is being run by the applicant in name of 'Sonu Enterprises'. A sale-deed has been executed by two of co-owners namely Hasan Abbas and Jafar Abbas in favour of State on 28.10.2025. 9. In view of said fact that the applicant has not denied the specific averment made in para nos. 10, 11 and 12 of personal affidavit of District Magistrate, Varanasi, no case for contempt is made out. 10. The contempt application is misconceived and stands dismissed. (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) May 6, 2026 (V. S. SINGH)