Allowed

Ishwar Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2023WRIC/8667/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a notice under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 regarding alleged obstruction of a chak road. The court held the notice lacked jurisdiction as Section 25/26 applies to easementary rights and quashed it, directing parties to follow the proper procedural path under Section 25/26.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 14.02.2023 under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is quashed; parties referred to Sections 25/26 for proper proceeding.

Ishwar Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8667 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Ishwar Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajai Kumar Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel representing the Gaon Sabha.

¶6

Notice dated 14.02.2023 issued by respondent No. 3 has been challenged on the ground that provisions of section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have wrongly been invoked, inasmuch as in the facts of the case, where the land covered by Gata Nos. 67 and 75 in the village is recorded in the name of petitioners, they have easementary rights of egress/ingress/to/fro chak road, which is recorded under Gata No. 71 and if the said chak road is being obstructed to the extent of 0.00014 hectares, the case would fall within the ambit of sections 25/26 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and not within the purview of section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It is, therefore, submitted that notice impugned is without jurisdiction and in the teeth of specific provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha conceded to the proposition advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case and submit that since the petitioner is causing obstruction in the user of chak road, the said obstruction has to be removed in accordance with law.

¶8

They further agree that the provisions of sections 25/26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 would be applicable in the facts of the case.

¶9

Considering the above submissions, the impugned notice dated 14.02.2023 issued by respondent No.3 Tehsildar, Sadar, District Ghazipur in Computerized Case No. T-202314291001065, is hereby quashed.

¶10

The writ petition is allowed .

¶11

However, quashing of the notice impugned will not come in the way of respondents to issue proper notice under sections 25/26 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, calling upon the petitioners to make their say in the matter. If such notice is issued and proceedings are registered on their basis, the petitioners shall file objections along with documentary evidence in support of their grievance. The proceedings shall thereafter be concluded within a period of six months after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶12

Order Date :- 28.3.2023 AKShukla/-

¶13

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ishwar Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharam Dei Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Abdul Naseem Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohd. Shamim Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Waziullah Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jaggannath Vs State of U.P. and 46 Others