Hemant Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary,Revenue Department Lucknow and 13 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37318

Court No. - 7

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4409 of 2025

Petitioner :- Hemant Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary,Revenue Department Lucknow And 13 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Pandey,Manoj Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Mohan Singh,Vivek Kumar Tripathi

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7, Sri Vivek Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 8 to 14 and perused the record.

¶8

The dispute raised in the present writ petition is a very narrow compass.

¶9

The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the land bearing part of Gata No.247 and shown in the Annexure No. 1 as the land in between Gata No. 248 and 223 going up to Plot No. 224. It is argued that the said land is being used as a land for ingress and egress and in fact the respondent no. 7 has taken steps and has passed the resolution for filling the said land with soil, which was being used as a public way. However, according to the petitioner, the respondent nos. 8 to 14 were resisting the said and were allegedly encroaching the said land.

¶10

The counsel for the respondent no. 8 to 14 makes a statement that they have no objection to the right of use of land as a pathway, however, no construction has been raised by the respondents. It is further argued that no suit for declaration of the rights over the said land has been filed by the respondent no. 8 to 14 so far or by the petitioner.

¶11

The counsel for the respondent no.7 based upon

¶12

instructions states that on account of dispute being raised by the petitioner as well as the respondent nos. 8 to 14, despite a resolution being passed for filling the land in question with soil for the convenience of the villagers, however, no further steps have been taken in view of the dispute inter-say in between the petitioner and the respondent nos. 8 to 14. He further states the land in question being a part of Gata No. 247 is a public abadi land, however, resolution has been passed by the respondent no. 7 for soil filling on the said land.

¶13

Considering the submissions made at the Bar, neither the petitioner nor the respondent nos. 8 to 14, as of now are claiming ownership rights over the land which is being used as a pathway. In view thereof, the present petition is disposed of with direction that the land in question shown in the Annexure No. 1 lying in between Gata No. 248 and 223 and going up to Gata No. 224 shall be continued to be used as pathway. Respondent No. 7 shall take steps for filling the same with soil, for the purpose of convenience of the villagers/residents, however, respondent nos. 8 to 14 would be at liberty to institute any proceedings for declaration of their rights, if so advised, as in the said suit the respondent no. 7 shall not take a defence that merely because they have done the work of soil refilling, the claim of the respondent nos. 8 to 14 cannot be considered. It is further clarified that this order shall have no effect on the rights of the petitioner over Gata No. 248 and 246 as owned by the respondent nos. 8 to 14.

¶14

Tehsil authority shall ensure that the land, which is to be used for pathway and indicated above is made free from any construction.

¶15

Order Date :- 2.7.2025 Arun

¶16

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

Hemant Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary,Revenue Department Lucknow and 13 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary,Revenue Department Lucknow and 13 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shrawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and Another

Kamlesh Chandra Maurya Vs Neetu Maurya and 2 Others

C/M Madarsa Naimiya Aftabe Rasool Mishrauliya Thru.Manager Ainullah Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Minority Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Singh Pal and Another Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal Lucknow Thru. Presiding Officer Hanuman Setu Mandir Lko. and 2 Others

Shiv Kumar Vs District Magistrate Sitapur and 4 Others

Rishi Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Another