HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9103 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Dispute in the present case pertains to easementary rights claimed by the petitioner on the land situated at Gata No. 1146, which is adjacent to the land of the petitioner and according to the petitioner same is vacant. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is recorded tenure holder of Gata No. 1148 which is triangular in form and there is railway line on one side while on the other side residence of Sub Divisional Magistrate and officers colony has been constructed after acquiring the land from the recorded tenure holders. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 25 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 claiming right of way on Gat No. 1148. Tehsildar (Judicial), Mohanlanganj has rejected the application of the petitioner stating that over Gata No. 1148 residential quarters of the revenue officials have been constructed which is surrounded by a boundary wall and therefore it is not possible to provide access to the petitioner though the said land and accordingly has rejected the application of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner thereafter, filed revision before the Sub Divisional Magistrate who has also considered the grievance of the petitioner and did Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kumar Ramakant Upadhyay, Arvind Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Anand Kumar Shukla .....Petitioner(s) District Magistrate,District, Lucknow And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tehsildar (Judicial) and rejected the revision by means of order dated 17.07.2025. 6. The petitioner before this Court has submitted that his land is surrounded by railway line and Government colony and residence of Sub Divisional Magistrate and claims right of easement. Initially proceedings have been rejected by the Tehsildar as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions has informed this Court that the petitioner has access from the road alongwith railway line and it is not the case where petitioner does not have any access to his land. Apart from the above, he has submitted that it has come on record that no public way exists on Gata No. 1148 on which petitioner is claiming easementary rights and consequently has opposed the claim of petitioner for easement through Gata No. 1148. 8. Considering rival contentions, it is noticed that firstly, it has been informed that petitioner already had access to his land situated at Gata No. 1146, alongwith the railway line and secondly, the land on which he is claiming easementary rights, there exists officers colony which is surrounded by the boundary wall and no access can be provided through the Officer's Colony. This Court further finds that there is no material or evidence adduced by the petitioner which can establish that he has been using any path way existing on Gata No. 1148 so as to claim easementary rights over the said land. 9. Easementary rights can be claimed only when it is demonstrated that person is utilizing the public way for a very long time without any possession and his easementary rights have stood for long period of time which can be established by a suit of easement. 10. The powers of authorities under Section 25 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are summary powers to consider grievance of the villagers and where ever such right is established, necessary orders can be passed. In the present case, authorities after physical verification of the record as well as site have come to conclusion that no path way can be given to the petitioner to approach his land through Gata No. 1148 on which Government colony exists which is surrounded by boundary wall. WRIC No. 9103 of 2025 2 11. Apart from the above, it is submitted that way already exists for the petitioner alongwith the railway line and accordingly, it cannot be said that petitioner's land is not accessible. In any view of the matter this Court do not find any infirmity in both the orders passed by the revenue authorities. However, it is open for the petitioner to establish his right of easement, proper remedy would be to file appropriate suit before the Court of competent jurisdiction where the petitioner can place all the evidence in order to establish his rights. In case such a suit is filed, it should be decided on the basis of evidence adduced before it, and any finding recorded in the proceedings under Section 25 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 will not influence the trial Court. 12. Subject to aforesaid observations, this Court do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. 13. Present writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. December 3, 2025 A. Verma WRIC No. 9103 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench