Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15368-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1161 of 2025 Petitioner :- Wasatulla Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned Counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Heard. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for following main relief:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to construct the road on the land of the petitioner i.e. on Gata No.194/0.0140 hectare, Gata No.195Ka/0.630 hectare and Gata No.200Ka/0.1520 hectare situated in village Gadiya Hasanpur, Pargana Badi, Tehsil Sidhauli, District-Sitapur, which is neither acquired nor comes under any scheme of the government while the land is still recorded in the name of petitioner and his other family members and is a private land of the petitioner." 4. On 06.02.2025, we had passed the following order:- "Petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged construction of road on his bhumidari land bearing Gata No.194/0.0140 hectare, Gata No.195Ka/0.630 hectare and Gata No.200Ka/0.1520 hectare situated in Village Gadiya Hasanpur, Pargana Badi, Tehsil Sidhauli, District Sitapur. Learned Standing Counsel has written instructions from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sidhauli, District Sitapur, wherein it has been stated that no road has been constructed on the aforesaid bhumidari land of the petitioner rather it is being constructed of Gata No.195Kha, which is recorded as banjar and Gata No.200Kha which is recorded in the name of one Shakir. The said instructions are taken on record. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is in possession of a revenue map wherein said Gatas are not mentioned separately, therefore, it appears that only theoretical division of Gatas has taken place. The question is on what basis the said instructions have been provided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sidhauli, District Sitapur. Two weeks' further time is granted to the learned Standing Counsel to obtain fresh instructions. If no actual division of Gata No.195Ka, Gata No.195Kha, Gata No.200Ka and Gata No.200Kha have taken place then the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sidhauli, District Sitapur should satisfy us as to how the road is being constructed and whether the boundaries of said two Gatas have been demarcated by actual division. List this case after two weeks as fresh. The petitioner shall file the aforesaid revenue map or the latest map, so will the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned." 5. In response to our aforesaid order dated 06.02.2025, learned Standing Counsel for the State has written instructions to the effect that the portion of the Minjumla Gatas bearing No.195Ka and 200Ka are not being utilized for the purposes of construction of road rather portions of the other co-tenure holders have been utilized on written consent obtained from them as there is need of passage for the villagers. We do not accept this contention. The Revenue Authorities should understand that in a Minjumla Gata unless there is any amicable partition between the parties, which is undisputed or there is partition as per law, it cannot be said that particular portion belongs to a particular co-tenure holder even if the said co- tenure holder is in possession of the said part. Therefore, we provide that till a partition takes place between the co-tenure holders or any exercise is conducted for division of holding whether it be in terms of Section 116 or Section 30(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the aforesaid gatas shall not be used for construction of the road, however, if the villagers want to use the said gatas for passage without construction of the road and without hindering the possession of the petitioner, they can do so for the moment but, this will not be the solution, the solution would be to get the actual division of holding done. The opposite parties are at liberty to do it at the earliest say within a period of two months. 6. The petitioner's Counsel undertakes that the petitioner will institute a proceeding either under Section 116 or Section 30(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as the case may be and shall cooperate in the said proceedings and it shall also be open for the other co-tenure holders to do the same and if it is permissible to take suo-moto action under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with corresponding rules of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 then the concerned court or Revenue Authority can do the same as per law especially as the Board has already issued directions as envisaged in Rule 26 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 vide order dated 08.10.2021. We have not adjudicated the rights of the other co- tenure holders of the aforesaid gatas and this order is without prejudice to their rights. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 12.3.2025 -Piyush- Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench