Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 132845 (ALL)

ARUN KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. REV. GOVT. U.P. CIVIL SECRT. LKO. AND OTHERS

WRIC/3000/2022 · 2025-01-02

Brij Raj Singh, Rajan Roy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:135-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3000 of 2022 Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Rev. Govt. U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Prasad,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for State-opposite parties no.1 to 5. 2. Considering the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite parties no.6 to 8 is dispensed with. 3. The petitioner claims to having a housing patta for constitution of a house on Gata No.99 which is recorded as navin parti. He clams to have constructed a house, however, the tenure holder of the adjacent land claims that the construction is on his holding and has, therefore, shut the door of the house by use of bricks. Being aggrieved, the petitioner initiated proceedings for demarcation on the administrative side and the report of the said exercise is Annexure-2, according to which the door of the petitioner and his construction was on the land granted to the petitioner for housing purposes and there was no encroachment on the land of the private opposite parties herein, who appear to be the tenure holders of Gata Nos.100, 101, 162 and 163. Based on the said exercise as claimed by the petitioner, the brick wall constructed by the private opposite parties on the door of the petitioner was removed. However, thereafter they have again blocked the egress and ingress of the petitioner. 4. Considering the facts of the case, let the petitioner initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 65 or Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 or both as the case may be, whereupon the court concerned would be obliged to do needful, but after ascertaining the facts. We make it clear that we have not adjudicated the claim of the private opposite parties as they have not been put to notice. 5. Writ petition is disposed of with liberty aforesaid. . (Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 2.1.2025 Rao/- Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench