Disposed¶15

Rakesh Kumar Tiwari v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Oct 2025WRIC/22291/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Encroachment on National Highway; Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, Section 26(2); removal notice; NHAI survey report; Gata No. 210 vs Gata Nos. 214-215; no demarcation before order; District Magistrate Kanpur Dehat directed to depute revenue officer for on-spot survey in presence of petitioner and NHAI; six-week timeline; petitioner's undertaking to remove encroachment; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction to the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat to depute a revenue officer and carry out an actual survey on the spot in the presence of the petitioner and N.H.A.I. officials within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order; petitioner's undertaking to remove any encroachment found recorded. ¶15

Rakesh Kumar Tiwari Vs Union of India and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner has encroached upon the land of Gata No. 210, which is earmarked as national highway. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Since a survey had already been conducted as per the impugned order but the petitioner specifically denies any encroachment over Gata No. 210, the Court directed the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat to depute a revenue officer to carry out an actual survey on the spot in the presence of the petitioner and officials of N.H.A.I., to be completed within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The Court recorded the petitioner's undertaking that if any encroachment by him is found over the land of the national highway, he shall remove the same.

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court disposed of a writ petition assailing an order dated 14.02.2025 passed under Section 26(2) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, whereby time-to-time notices were issued alleging encroachment on National Highway land. The petitioner claimed continued ownership of Gata Nos. 214 and 215, Village-Raniya Padaw, Tehsil-Akbarpur, District-Kanpur Dehat, asserted the land had not been acquired for highway widening, filed a detailed objection, and denied any encroachment over Gata No. 210, whereas NHAI's survey report indicated encroachment over Gata No. 210 earmarked as national highway; the petitioner also contended the order was passed without actual demarcation. Resolving the factual dispute, the Court directed the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat to depute a revenue officer and carry out an actual on-spot survey in the presence of the petitioner and NHAI officials within six weeks of production of a certified copy of the order, recording the petitioner's undertaking to remove any encroachment found.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 22291 of 2025

¶3

Rakesh Kumar Tiwari

¶4

	Versus	.....	Petitioner(s)
Union Of India And 3 Others		.....Re	spondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Pradip Kumar Sriv	astava
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Rajesh Kumar Akanksha Gaur, Agarwal	Jaiswal, C.S.C.,	A.S.G.I., Swetashwa

¶5

Court No. - 29

¶6

HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

¶7

Heard Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, Ms. Akanksha Gaur, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned A.C.S.C. for the State-respondent.

¶8

The instant writ petition is preferred assailing the validity of the order dated 14.02.2025 passed under Section 26(2) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (in short 'Act, 2002'), wherein time to time notices were issued under Section 26(2) of the Act, 2002 alleging that the petitioner has encroached upon the National Highway and, accordingly, the notice was issued to remove the illegal encroachment made on road, which is national highway.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that till date the petitioner is actual owner of Gata No. 214 and 215, situated at Village-Raniya Padaw, Tehsil-Akbarpur, District-Kanpur Dehat with transferable right and the said land has not been acquired for widening of National Highway. He submits that a detailed objection to the notice has already been filed, however, even without actual demarcation of the land, the respondents have proceeded to pass the order impugned in arbitrary manner and unnecessarily harassing the petitioner. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement on instruction that the petitioner has not encroached upon the land of national highway.

¶10

WRIC No. 22291 of 2025

¶11

¶12

Ms. Akanksha Gaur, learned counsel for N.H.A.I. has placed a detailed instructions and submits that as per the survey report there is an encroachment over Gata No. 210, which is earmarked as national highway and, accordingly, notices were issued.

¶13

Considering the factual situation, we find that even though the survey was conduced as per the order impugned but as the petitioner insists upon that there is no encroachment over the national highway and petitioner has specifically not encroached the land of Gata No. 210, which is earmarked as national highway, the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat is directed to depute some revenue officer and carry out actual survey on the spot in the presence of the petitioner and officials of N.H.A.I. The said exercise may be carried out within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶14

As the petitioner has already given an undertaking that in case any such encroachment by the petitioner is found over the land of national highway, definitely the petitioner shall remove the same.

¶15

In view of the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶16

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

¶17

October 8, 2025 Pkb/

¶18

Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh Kumar Tiwari v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Tiwari v. Union of India and 3 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

Similar cases