Mahadev Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2024A482/6318/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court considered an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging orders in civil proceedings concerning land disputes and alleged misuse of position. Observing discrepancies in the site plan and revenue report regarding the disputed area, the court stayed the impugned orders and listed the matter for further hearing after obtaining counter affidavits. No substantive ruling on the applica

What did the court decide?

Stayed the effect and operation of the impugned orders until further orders of this Court.

Mahadev Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6318 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Mahadev Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Karunakar Srivastava,Shiv Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suneel Kumar Mishra,Vipin Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing for private respondent no. 2.

¶6

The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 13.02.2024 passed by City Magistrate, Gonda in Case No. 175 of 2023 as well as revisional order dated 03.07.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 79 of 2024.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had started construction over his 'sahan' area, but the private respondent no. 2, by misusing the position of his son, who is a Lekhpal, moved application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. on the basis of concocted facts, claiming that there was common passage, on which, the construction was being raised by the applicant. The respondent no. 2 also annexed one site plan along with the said application, which was allegedly annexed with a suit filed by one Om Prakash against Ram Harakh Tiwarirespondent no. 2. It is further submitted that thereafter, another map was prepared by the Revenue officials mentioning that the place, which is being used for construction, was used for flow of raining water, but there is no whisper in the report that the said area was being used as a passage by the private respondent no. 2 or other villagers. Thereafter, the proceedings under Sections 107, 116 Cr.P.C. was also initiated and City Magistrate, under the influence of Area Lekhpal, passed the impugned order

¶8

dated 13.02.2024, which was challenged before the revisional authority. It is also submitted that the revisional authority, without considering the facts, wrongly dismissed the revision. It is, thus, submitted that the indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 2 vehemently oppose the prayer of the applicant. However, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 fails to explain the map annexed with the application under Section 133 Cr.P.C.

¶10

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 and going through the contents of the application, impugned orders as well as other relevant documents, including the site plan annexed with the application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. as also the report submitted by the revenue authorities, it is evident that the 'sahan' door of the private respondent no. 2 is shown in the north side and no door of respondent no. 2 is opening towards the disputed land.

¶11

In view of above facts and circumstances, the matter requires consideration.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondents may file counter affidavit within three weeks.

¶13

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.

¶14

List this case in the month of February, 2025.

¶15

Until further orders of this Court, effect and operation of the impugned orders shall remain stayed.

¶16

Order Date :- 11.12.2024 VKS

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mahadev Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadev Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anirudh Singh Vs State of U.P.through Secy.Labour Deptt.Civil Sectt.and Others

Rajendra Prasad Shukla Vs Union of India Thru General Manager N.E. Railway and Others

Dinesh Kumar Misra Vs Dev Narayan S/O Dewta Deen and Another

Veena Singh Vs Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge Court No. 5 Lko. and 6 Others

Shesh Narayan Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Preeti Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) South Court No. 24 Distt. Sultanpur and Another