Mohammad Sajid Khan v. Sri Satyendra Kumar , District Magistrate, And 5 Others

#2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that already a representation has been filed before authorities through land owner, which is pending consideration.

#3. In the personal affidavit filed by District Magistrate, Varanasi, it has been stated that no action has been taken against the applicant till date.

#4. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon two decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court one in case of Mangat Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1996 (8) SCC 664 and the other passed in Special Leave to Appeal No. 13695 of 2019, Santosh Kumar Chaurasia and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 19.06.2019.

#5. According to him, the building could not be taken by State authorities 2 CAPL No. 2212 of 2026 without paying compensation to the tenant.

#6. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

#7. The writ Court simplicitor had directed the applicant to approach the authorities through his land lord/land owner for redressal of his grievance against demolition and protection of his tenancy. As the matter is still pending before district authorities, the same has to be addressed by the authorities. The writ Court had not granted any protection to the applicant while disposing of the writ petition on 08.12.2025.

#8. Moreover, the judgment relied upon in case of Santosh Kumar Chaurasia (supra) is not applicable in the instant case as parties before Hon'ble Supreme Court had amicably settled the matter and payment was made to occupier of the shop as per settlement arrived between the parties.

#9. Further, in Mangat Ram (supra), the matter was in regard to enhancement of compensation awarded in reference proceeding. The Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere in the order of Division Bench by which the determination of compensation was made. The counsel has misread the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as rendered in paragraph no. 7 of the said judgment. The entire judgment rendered in case of Mangat Ram (supra) is extracted hereasunder:- " 1. Leave granted.

#2. Heard learned counsel for all the parties.

#3. The notification under Section 4(1) was published on 16-8-1983 for acquiring 49 acres 1 kanal 15 marlas of land for establishing a commercial market of Auto Vehicles and for commercial purposes in Sirsa. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at the rate of Rs 25,000 per acre. On reference, the Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs 30,000 per acre. When the matter was carried in appeal, the learned Single Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs 27.50 per sq. yd. In LPA, the compensation was enhanced to Rs 40 per sq. yd. 3 CAPL No. 2212 of 2026

#4. The Municipal Committee filed appeals arising out of SLPs Nos. 23334-35 of 1994 and 20331-32 of 1994. The appeals arising out of SLPs Nos. 9046, 8448 and 7231 of 1994 are filed by the Punjab Wakf Board. The appeals arising out of SLPs Nos. 535-36 of 1994 are filed by the tenants for the apportionment in a reference under Section 30.

#5. The question is: whether the determination of the compensation by the High Court is correct in law? It is not in dispute that the Municipal Committee had not filed any appeal against the enhancement of compensation by the learned Single Judge to the Division Bench. Dissatisfied with the enhancement of the compensation, the claimants filed LPA and the Division Bench enhanced the compensation to Rs 40 per sq. yd. It would appear that in similar cases, the land situated in similar situation, the High Court had granted compensation at the same rates and the Division Bench reduced the developmental charges from 40% to 33 1/3%.

#6. In view of the fact that in other cases the compensation was determined at the rate of Rs 40 per sq. yd. which was allowed to become final, we decline to interfere with the determination of the compensation by the Division Bench of the High Court.

#7. As regards apportionment of the compensation, the High Court has directed to pay 1/4 to the tenant and 3/4 to the Wakf Board. In view of the judgment in Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur v. Bihari Lal [(1994) 4 SCC 523] and Inder Parshad v. Union of India [(1994) 5 SCC 239] , the tenants are entitled to 3/4 of the compensation while the landlord is entitled to 1/4 of the compensation. In view of the above law, the order of the High Court in appeals arising from reference under Section 30 is modified to the extent that appellants/tenants Mangat Ram and Others are entitled to 3/4th while the Wakf Board is entitled to 1/4th of the compensation amount. The amount awarded in the judgment of the Single Judge under Section 23(1-A) also requires to be apportioned accordingly.

#8. The appeals are disposed of. The appeals of RC are dismissed. No costs." 4 CAPL No. 2212 of 2026

#10. No benefit can be extended to the applicant in view of judgment cited by his counsel.

#11. As the matter is still pending consideration before district authorities, district authorities are hereby directed to immediately decide the representation of the applicant, within a period of two weeks, from today.

#12. In view of said fact, no case for contempt is made out, at this stage.

#13. The contempt application stands dismissed. May 7, 2026 (V. S. SINGH) (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad