Shri Prakash and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10426 of 2025

¶3

Shri Prakash And 2 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dr. Pooja Singh, Shivangi Paliwal , Surya Prakash Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 20

¶8

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶9

Heard Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Abhishek Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-opposite party nos.1 to 3.

¶10

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 to remove the illegal construction and unlawful obstruction from the plot of land bearing Gata No.532 situated at Village- Meera Nagar, TehsilMahmoodabad, District- Sitapur.

¶11

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the said Gata No.532 is recorded as Abadi land in the revenue records and the petitioners were using the said land as passage since long time and the same is generally used as pathway. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the annexure nos.1 & 2 which are coloured photographs showing certain obstructions on the land. She submits that the opposite party nos.4, 5 & 6 have unnecessarily obstructed the said passage from being used.

¶12

It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the opposite parties have willfully and forcibly blocked the aforesaid passage by constructing a wall and excavating a septic tank, wrongfully encroaching upon it by extending their construction approximately four

¶13

WRIC No. 10426 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

feet forward. It has also been submitted that under the pretext of constructing a septic tank, the opposite parties have unlawfully excavated a large pit on the said plot of land and placed tin sheets, wooden planks, bamboo poles and other debris thereon, thereby blocking the free passage of the petitioners as well as of the other villagers. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have moved several applications and representations to the authorities, but the same have yet not been decided nor any appropriate action has been taken.

¶16

Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents on the basis of the instructions dated 16.10.2025 received from the office of the Sub Divisional Officer, TehsilMahmoodabad, District- Sitapur, has stated that a year back, the construction of the septic tank was stopped by the authorities and statusquo is still maintained. He further submits that the petitioners have already filed a civil suit before the court of learned Civil Jude (Junior Division), Mahmoodabad, having Civil Suit No.157 of 2024 (Pradeep Kumar and others versus Umashankar and another) wherein the next date fixed is 18.12.2025. He further submits that the appropriate remedy available to the petitioners is to invoke Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

¶17

Section 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, reads as under:

¶18

" 26. Removal of obstacle- If the Tahsildar finds that any obstacle impedes the free use of a public road, path or common land of a village or obstructs the road or water-course or source of water, he may direct the removal of such obstacle and may, for that purpose, use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary and may recover the cost of such removal from the person concerned in the manner prescribed."

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the instructions from her client, has made a statement before the Court that the petitioners have already moved an application for withdrawal of the aforesaid suit No. 157 of 2024 and the same is pending for order before the court concerned. She further submits that her clients intend to withdraw the said civil suit with liberty to pursue the remedy available to them under the U.P. Revenue

¶20

WRIC No. 10426 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

Code, 2006, before the revenue authorities.

¶23

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, service of notice upon the opposite party nos.4, 5 & 6 is dispensed with.

¶24

In view of above, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served to keep the writ petition pending.

¶25

Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move a fresh representation annexing therewith all the documents in support of their case before the Tehsildar, Tehsil- Mahmoodabad, District- Sitapur, who shall look into the matter and pass appropriate order, strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation, unless there is any legal impediment.

¶26

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶27

November 25, 2025 Abhishek Gupta

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shri Prakash and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Prakash and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Swati Mishra vs Dr. Anurag Tiwari

Mohit vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Stamp Lko. and 3 Others

Sangeeta Singh vs Aniket @ Shivam Singh

Nagendra Sharma and Another vs The State of U.P. through Principal Secretry Home Civil Secretariat Lucknow and Another

Maya Maurya and Another vs Dharmendra Kushwaha

Navin Kumar vs M/S Aims Max Gardenia Developers (P) Limited, Noida Thru. Director