KAJAL DEVI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. REVENUE DEPTT. LKO. AND 10 OTHERS
/8957/2025 · 2025-09-12
Brij Raj Singh, Sangeeta Chandra
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 164289 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 164289 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8957 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the State-opposite parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner with following main prayer(s):
"1. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the Opposite Parties No. 2 to 5 to take legal action against the Opposite Parties No. 6 to 11 who are demolish the house of petitioner and with the help of local policemen of Police Station-Udaipur and they want to forcefully occupy the land of the petitioner and installed the Khadanza contained as Annexure No. 1 in the interest of justice. 2. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the Opposite Parties 4 and 5 to registered the First Information Report of the petitioner against the Opposite Parties No. 6 to 11 and taken necessary action."
3. It is the case of the petitioner that local police is helping opposite party nos.6 to 11 in demolishing the house of the petitioner. Copies of photographs taken of police personnel visiting petitioner's house have been filed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has produced before this Court instructions sent by Shri Kailash Yadav, Sub Inspector, Police Station Udaipur, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Kumar Kashyap Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Kajal Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 10 Others .....Respondent(s)
District Pratapgarh, wherein it has been stated that one Jiyalal, who is neighbour of the petitioner, wanted 'rasta', which was existing in front of the petitioner's house, to be paved as because of Mansoon there was lot of water logging. The revenue team as well as police officials were present for spot inspection due to the complaint made by the petitioner and the application made by Jiyalal. The earlier mud path was covered with 'gitti'/stone ballast' in presence of the revenue team and the police officials, but there was a threat of breach of peace and therefore, proceedings under Sections 126/135 B.N.S.S. have been taken on 30.06.2025 and relevant G.D. Entry No.46 at 20.25 hours has been recorded in the police station concerned. 5.
We find from the instructions that the revenue team had gone on the spot and inspected the area and also demarcated the 'rasta' leading to the house of Jiyalal. We do not find any good ground to show interference. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. September 12, 2025 Anupam S/- WRIC No. 8957 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench