Disposed

Kunwar Varun Chandra and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2021WRIC/6198/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a Tehsildar's order allowing a path over their land for another plot's access. The court declined writ jurisdiction due to the long-standing nature of the issue and the need for evidence, disposing of the petition with leave to file a regular suit.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to institute a regular civil or revenue suit to determine the claim; the impugned order is subject to the outcome of such proceedings.

Kunwar Varun Chandra and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6198 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Kunwar Varun Chandra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shruti Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brajesh Kumar Singh,Rohit Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Shruti Malviya for the petitioners; Sri Brajesh Kumar Singh for the respondent no.3; the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 5 and perused the record.

¶6

By this petition, the petitioners have sought quashing the order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Meerganj, District Bareilly by which he has endorsed the report to provide for rasta over plot no. 622 to have access to plot no. 617 on a report that plot no. 622 was being utilized for Bazar and that a rasta from the said plot was in existence and had been in use by the villagers for going to the river bank and other than that rasta there is no rasta provided in the village map to have access to plot no. 617.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that plot no. 622 is of the petitioners and plot no. 617 is of the respondent no.6. The said plot no.617 is not declared for non agricultural purposes and, therefore, is to be used only for agricultural purposes. It is contended that if under the consolidation proceedings, the private respondent no.6 or his predecessor-in-interest had raised no objection with regard to nonexistence of chak road/road to have access to plot no. 617, they could only have access to the said plot by using 'Medh'. It is also the case of the petitioners that in absence of any order of a regular court in a regular proceeding, the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to provide a rasta from over plot no. 622.

¶8

The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners may appear appealing but in village matters where state of affairs exist for a considerable length of time, any disruption in their continuance may create law and order issues, therefore, ordinarily, the writ court should be skeptical in interfering with such matters on technical grounds. The village map, which has been enclosed with the petition, does not disclose existence of any rasta to have access to plot no. 617 though, in front of plot no. 622 there exists a rasta in the village map.

¶9

Under these circumstances, whether the owner of plot no. 617 has any easementary right over plot no. 622 is an issue which would have to be determined by taking evidence of the parties. As in the report it is provided that the rasta had been in existence since long and the villagers had been using plot no. 622, where a bazar used to be held, to have access to the river bank, the aforesaid issue might have to be decided by taking evidence not only of the parties to this petition but other villagers also.

¶10

In these circumstances, we decline to exercise our discretionary writ jurisdiction. But, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

¶11

claim of the petitioners, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by giving liberty to the petitioners to institute a regular civil or revenue suit or such other proceeding to seek such relief as they may be advised. It goes without saying that the order of the Tehsildar which is impugned in this petition would be subject to any decision that might be taken by the Court in such regular proceedings as the petitioners may be advised to undertake.

¶12

With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed off .

¶13

Order Date :- 24.6.2021 Sunil Kr Tiwari

Kunwar Varun Chandra and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunwar Varun Chandra and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Budhram and 13 Others Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Santlal and 4 Others Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Surendra Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Raj Kishore Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Rashmi Vs State of U P and 5 Others