HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6118 of 2023 Reserved on 08.08.2025 Delivered on 10.10.2025 In Chamber HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J. 1. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 13.10.2023, passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bahraj, District Deoria- opposite party No.3, in Case No.1563 of 2023 (Shyam Bihari Shukla vs. Amarnath Shukla) as well as order dated 9.10.2023 passed by the opposite party No.3, under Section 133 Cr.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record. 3. The factual matrix of the case in brief are that the revisionist in present criminal revision namely, Amar nath Shukla, son of Shiv Ratan, R/o Village Karayal Shukl Tappa Kaparwar, Tehsil Barhaj, District Deoria, moved an application before the District Magistrate, Deoria on 2.6.2023, wherein he stated that he has been residing in Shikme No.32/4, Rakba 0.0240 hectare by constructing a house since time of his ancestors. A hand pump, three trees, latrine and sahan are situated in north side of his house. His co-sharer namely Shyam Bihari Shukla is trying to grab applicant’s land and for that purpose, he is all set to use violence. Even after much persuasion, he did not relent, which compelled the applicant to file a civil suit O.S. No.54/2024 (Raghunath vs. Gaon Sabha and another) in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court NO.10, Deoria in respect of said land which is pending. In the meanwhile, the said Shyam Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : R S Dubey, Savita Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vinay Dubey Amarnath Shukla .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Bihari Shukla was again bent upon to raise the construction in the land of the applicant forcefully, in the month of June, 2023 taking undue benefit of civil court vacation. Therefore, a necessary action be taken against Shyam Bihari in respect of the land of the applicant i.e. Shikmi No.32/4 and he be directed to refrain from interfering in possession of the applicant and raising any construction in said land. Said Shyam Bihari also filed an application before S.H.O. concerned against Amar Nath Shukla with the allegation that Amar Nath Shukla had caused obstruction in public pathway by raising a wall due to which public at large is suffering. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has observed in impugned order dated 13.10.2023 on complaint of Shyam Bihari Shukla and others, a report has been submitted by Lekhpal and Revenue Inspector through Tehsildar in which it is stated that Plot NO.386A area 2.3260 hectare is recorded as abadi Class VI (2), which lies in the village Karayal Shukl, Tappa Kaparwan, a public pathway is shown in site plan. Said public pathway has been blocked by opposite party Amar Nath Shukla by raising a wall. Taking cognizance of report of Tehsil, a conditional order was passed under Section 133 Cr.P.C. on 6.6.2023 and opposite party was directed to appear and submit his written denial. The opposite party has not submitted any written or oral denial and instead has filed a photocopy of plaint of Civil Suit No.54 of 2021 (Raghunath vs. Gaon Sabha and another). Inspection was carried out on 9.10.2023 in presence of the parties and villagers. A spot inspection memo was also prepared. On perusal of spot memo, marks of old pathway were found, which has been blocked in the middle by raising a wall. The statements of villagers were also taken. Opposite party was directed to remove the obstruction as this pathway is meant for villagers and their family members to move out from the village. The opposite party was not prepared to remove the obstruction, therefore, a written order was passed on the spot for removal of the obstruction and copy of the order was sent to S.O., Madanpur and Gran Pradhan for removal of obstruction in public pathway and getting it cleared for public ingress and egress. Feeling aggrieved by above stated order, the opposite party filed present criminal revision before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the impugned order suffers from illegality, irregularity and incorrectness. There is no official record regarding existence of alleged pathway/rasta but the impugned CRLR No. 6118 of 2023 2 order has been passed due to influence of Gram Pradhan and demolition order was passed in respect of the construction of the revisionist without giving him opportunity of hearing. Inasmuch as, a Civil Suit No.54 of 2021 (Raghunath vs. Gaon Sabha and another) is pending before the civil court since 23.3.2021 but the Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed impugned order to avoid the civil proceedings. The learned civil court vide order dated 25.3.2021, allowed the application under Section 80(2) C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff in said civil suit and dispensed with requirement of notice under Section 80(2) C.P.C. and directed for taking of steps for service of notice under Section 106 of U.P. Panchayatraj Act. The revisionist was not afforded opportunity of hearing on the application of opposite party No.4 dated 5.6.2023 and the impugned order was passed in utter haste on 9.10.2023. In village map, a rasta is marked which is turned by the side at Plot No.32/5, which lies eastwards to Plot No.32/4 claimed by the revisionist. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 submitted that the disputed wall erected by the revisionist in disputed land has already been demolished by State agency in compliance of impugned order. It is wrong to say that the land is part of abadi land of the revisionist. In the map, it is recorded as abadi Class VI (2). This class of land belongs to Gaon Sabha under ownership of State Government. In this category non agricultural land for use of abadi, railway, bulding, road and other uses. The revisionist has not undertaken proceeding of correction of map. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionist did not deny the fact that the said wall has been demolished in compliance of impugned order by State Agency. 10. Section 133 Cr.P.C. in which impugned order has been passed, provides as under:- “133. Conditional order for removal of nuisance.— (1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers— CRLR No. 6118 of 2023 3 (a) that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place or from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public; or (b) that the conduct of any trade or occupation, or the keeping of any goods or merchandise, is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community, and that in consequence such trade or occupation should be prohibited or regulated or such goods or merchandise should be removed or the keeping thereof regulated; or (c) that the construction of any building, or, the disposal of any substance, as is likely to occasion configuration or explosion, should be prevented or stopped; or (d) that any building, tent or structure, or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing by, and that in consequence the removal, repair or support of such building, tent or structure, or the removal or support of such tree, is necessary; or (e) that any tank, well or excavation adjacent to any such way or public place should be fenced in such manner as to prevent danger arising to the public; or (f) that any dangerous animal should be destroyed, confined or otherwise disposed of, such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping any such goods or merchandise, or owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, substance, tank, well or excavation, or owning or possessing such animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order— (i) to remove such obstruction or nuisance; or (ii) to desist from carrying on, or to remove or regulate in such manner as may be directed, such trade or occupation, or to remove such goods or merchandise, or to regulate the keeping thereof in such manner as may be directed; or (iii) to prevent or stop the construction of such building, or to alter the disposal of such substance; or (iv) to remove, repair or support such building, tent or structure, or to remove or support such trees; or CRLR No. 6118 of 2023 4 (v) to fence such tank, well or excavation; or (vi) to destroy, confine or dispose of such dangerous animal in the manner provided in the said order, or, if he objects so to do, to appear before himself or some other Executive Magistrate subordinate to him at a time and place to be fixed by the order, and show cause, in the manner hereinafter provided, why the order should not be made absolute. (2) No order duly made by a Magistrate under this section shall be called in question in any Civil Court. Explanation.—A “public place” includes also property belonging to the State, camping grounds and grounds left unoccupied for sanitary or recreative purposes. 11. On Perusal of impugned order, it cannot be said that the revisionist was not given opportunity of hearing by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate before passing the impugned conditional order. The existence of rasta is established by evidence collected during inquiry. The revisionist has not denied the erection of wall in disputed land and its subsequent demolition which he claims to be his own. I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order passed by the learned court below. The revision deserves to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, present revision is dismissed. October 10, 2025 Kamarjahan CRLR No. 6118 of 2023 5 (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- KAMARJAHAN ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- KAMARJAHAN ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad