PARIKARMA PRASAD VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. REVENUE DEPTT. LKO AND 4 OTHERS
WRIC/3270/2025 · 2025-04-05
Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 131565 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 131565 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19060-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3270 of 2025 Petitioner :- Parikarma Prasad Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Prakash Verma,Pinki Devi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Heard. The petitioner claims interference by the Police authorities in his possession on Gata No. 595 and the construction sought to be made thereon. However, learned Standing Counsel says that the adjacent land bearing Gata No. 601 is parti land,wherein pattas have been granted to certain persons, and there is a dispute between the petitioner and the said persons. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon certain revenue reports. However, we are of the opinion that if proceedings for demarcation of boundaries of Gata No. 595 and / or 601 are undertaken, then this would resolve the dispute. Let the petitioner move appropriate application in terms of Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Rule 22 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, whereupon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall undertake the aforesaid exercise and complete it at the earliest, say within a period of two months. Based on the result, if it is found that the construction is being undertaken by the petitioner on his own gata, then, the police authorities or the revenue authorities shall not interfere with the petitioner's possession, rather they would be obliged to protect his possession. However, if it is found that that the factual position is otherwise, i.e. the construction sought to be made is not on Gata No. 595 but on a land in respect to which the petitioner does not
have any right, then, the authorities can interfere but to the extent permissible in law, and the petitioner would also be better advised in such a situation to rectify himself, subject to his right to appeal etc.. If there is any legal impediment in conducting the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner should be informed in writing at the earliest. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 Lokesh Kumar [Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench