HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8829 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents no. 1 to 5 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.6. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to construct any Interlocking Road over the Abadi land in front of house of petitioner i.e. Darwaja & Sahan of petitioner situated at village Janapur, Tehsil Gauriganj, District Amethi." 3. In view of the order proposed to be passed issuance of notice to respondents no. 7, 8 & 9 is dispensed with. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's house is situated in Village Janapur in old abadi Khata No. 322. In front of the house of the petitioner there was no road in existence, but the respondents are now constructing a road and Rs.9,70,000/- has been sanctioned for laying interlocking tiles from the house of Deep Singh and Rejendra Pratap Singh, as is evident from the Sanction letter dated 02.07.2025. Since the respondents are constructing such road in the sahan of the petitioner, he has approached this Court. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lakshmana Singh, Anand Pratap Singh, Rahul Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Shivdan Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Respondents has stated before this Court that financial sanction is given after development plan is approved on proper survey of the area. 6. Sri Mohan Singh, Advocate has pointed out that as is evident from the photographs in the writ petition filed as annexure-02, the road is being constructed faraway from the place where the cattle of the petitioner have been tethered and the road is being constructed for the benefit of public at large i.e. village abadi. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Maharaj Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (1977) 1 SCC 155 to say that the land appurtenance to the house should be treated as vested in the owner of the house. 8. However, after going through the judgement rendered in the case of Maharaj Singh (Supra), we find that the Supreme Court has defined and considered area appurtenant to buildings to be only 5 yards or not the whole area around a building. The petitioner can at best claim 15 feet land outside his darwaja as sahan. 9. Sri Mohan Singh, Advocate has pointed out from the photographs annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner has tiled certain area of land outside his darwaja and the road is being constructed beyond such tiled area and not disturbing the tiled portion, which can be treated as the petitioner's sahan. 10. We do not find it an appropriate case to issue any Mandamus as prayed for in the writ petition as the petitioner can claim only 5 yards/15 feet as his sahan and not 50 feet as presently claimed by him to be his sahan and have vested in him under Section 9 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. September 11, 2025 Darpan Sharma WRIC No. 8829 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench