HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 144 of 2025 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J. 1. Mr. R.C. Singh, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of review- applicant. He submits, his client was petitioner in the writ petition, disposed of on order dated 13th May, 2025 by a Division Bench, the members of which are no longer available. Hence, the review is specially assigned to this Bench. 2. Mr. Singh submits further, his client was constructing on his property according to sanction plan. The plan was drawn up and sanctioned depicting his entry and exit to the plot. Respondent no. 3 (the City Magistrate) at instance of respondent no. 5 (the Nagar Palika Parishad) issued restraint order stopping his construction, raising purported dispute regarding existing road over public land. Hence, his client filed for breaking down the wall restraining his access to the public road. There is no question of easement arising as, he reiterates, his client has access to his plot as depicted in the sanctioned plan. As such, there is error apparent in order dated 13th May, 2025. There be review. 3. Mr. G.C. Tiwari, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and Mr. Dharmaveer Singh, learned advocate for respondent nos. 4 and 5 (the Nagar Palika Parishad). They are unable to dispute applicant's submission that he has access to his plot other than alleged public road bounded by the Nagar Palika Parishad. 4. Paragraphs 15 and 16 from order dated 13th May, 2025, review of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C., Dharmaveer Singh Murlidhar Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) which is sought, are reproduced below. "15. Technically, the sanction granted to the petitioner for raising constructions over plot no.295 leased out to him is required to be done as per the sanctioned map. However, the issue as to whether the owner of plot no.295 or its lessee has egress or ingress from and into from the said plot is material in view of Section 7 (2-A)(e) of the U.P. (Regulations of Building Operations) Act, 1958. The order of 19.07.2021 therefore is not without jurisdiction and is in accordance with the aforesaid provision of law. 16. Since the petitioner is actually claiming an easementary right over plot no.295/469, the only remedy, if any, available to him is to sue the respondents in this regard. Any relief based on an alleged easementary right cannot be granted by the writ court at the first instance. " 5. In view of applicant's assertion that he has otherwise access to his plot, in which he is constructing and no dispute thereto, there is clear error apparent in the order under review. It is recalled. The review application is allowed and disposed of. 6. The writ petition, thus restored for hearing afresh, be placed before the Bench having nomination. October 29, 2025 Jaswant CMRAD No. 144 of 2025 2 (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Satya Veer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad