Dismissed¶12

Mahaveer Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Aug 2025NA528/43870/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing application dismissed; Section 152 B.N.S.S, 2023 proceedings before Up Zila Magistrate/SDM Gabhana, Aligarh; demolition of boundary wall closing the Nali adjacent to Khasra No.995/M, village Deta Khurd; A.G.A. report dated 19.08.2025 (land water/submerged plot, water flow obstructed); prior Writ Petition No.39288 of 2022 (disposed 12.09.2023) and pending Writ-C No.2801 of 2024; impugned order dated 25-10-2024 in Case No.7796 of 2024; Allahabad High Court, Justice Deepak Verma; neutral citation 2025:AHC:143076.

What did the court decide?

There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 25.10.2024; no interference is warranted by this Court, and the Section 528 BNSS application is dismissed. ¶12

Mahaveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 of the Up Zila Magistrate/SDM Gabhana directing demolition of the applicant's boundary wall adjacent to Khasra No.995/M (which had closed the Nali near the road) is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside/quashed.

¶8

Court's answer

There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 25.10.2024; no interference is warranted by this Court, and the Section 528 BNSS application is dismissed.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Per the A.G.A.'s report dated 19.08.2025, it is an admitted fact that Khasra No.995/M allotted to the applicant is land water and the plot was submerged into the water.

¶9

Key takeaways

On perusal of the report and the impugned order, the applicant has illegally erected the boundary wall connecting to the road, which has blocked the flow of water.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Deepak Verma, J.; order dated 20.8.2025) dismissed an application under Section 528 BNSS (Application No.43870 of 2024) filed by Mahaveer Singh seeking quashing of the order dated 25-10-2024 passed by the Up Zila Magistrate/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gabhana, Tehsil Gabhana, District Aligarh, in Case No.7796 of 2024 (Computer Case No.T202418020407796; State v. Mahaveer Singh) under Section 152 of B.N.S.S, 2023, which directed demolition of the applicant's boundary wall adjacent to Khasra No.995/M, village Deta Khurd, District Aligarh, near the road, on the ground that the wall had closed the Nali. A report called from the learned A.G.A. (dated 19.08.2025) recorded it as admitted that Khasra No.995/M is land water and stood submerged, and that the applicant's boundary wall had obstructed the flow of water; the Court also noted the earlier writ proceedings (Writ Petition No.39288 of 2022 disposed on 12.09.2023; representation decided 18.10.2023; Writ-C No.2801 of 2024 pending). Holding: there is no illegality in the impugned order and no interference is warranted; application dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143076

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 43870 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mahaveer Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mustaqeem Ahmad,Pankaj Sharma,Shiv Murti Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 25-10-2024 passed by Up Zila Magistrate/Sub Divisional Magistrate Gabhana, Tehsil Gabhana, District Aligarh in Case No.7796 of 2024, Computer Case No.T202418020407796 (State versus Mahaveer Singh) Under section 152 of B.N.S.S, 2023 which is pending before the learned Up Zila Magistrate Sub Divisional Magistrate Gabhana, Tehsil - Gabhana, District Aligarh,

¶8

Counsel for the applicant has assailed the order dated 25.10.2024 by which the applicant was directed to demolish the disputed wall adjacent to Khasra No.995/M situated at village Deta Khurd, District Aligarh, near the road as the applicant has erected a boundary wall which has closed the Nali . Counsel for the applicant submits that the order impugned is illegal, arbitrary and without considering the objection raised by the applicant. The impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶9

A report was called for from the learned A.G.A. As per report dated 19.08.2025, it is admitted fact that the Khasra No.995/M allotted to the applicant, is land water and that plot was submerged into the water. On account of the construction of the boundary wall by the applicant, flowing of water has obstructed the area.

¶10

On perusal of report as well as the order impugned, it appears that the applicant has illegally erected the boundary wall connecting to road which has blocked the flow of water and

¶11

moreover, in regard to that, civil writ is pending before the court concerned, as earlier, the applicant filed Writ Petition No. 39288 of 2022 and this Court vide order dated 12.09.2023 disposed of the petition with direction to the petitioner to move a fresh representation before the respondent ventilating his grievance within two weeks and in case such representation is preferred, the same would be looked into, examined and remedied, in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petition of the applicant was decided vide order dated 18.10.2023 against which Writ-C No.2801 of 2024 (Mahaveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) is pending before this Court.

¶12

In view of the above, there is no illegality in the order impugned. No interference is warranted by this Court. The application is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Meenu Singh

¶14

Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahaveer Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahaveer Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases