Wali Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 15798 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:109675
 
Court No. - 70
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2834 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Wali Ahmad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Uday Prakash Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Manvendra Nath Singh,Vipin Gangwar
 

 
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 and perused the material available on record.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 14.12.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.02, Bareilly in Criminal Revision No.297 of 2022 (CNR No.UPBR010082302022) rejecting the revision of the petitioner and confirming the judgment and order dated 19.07.2022 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate Bahedi, Bareilly in Case No.5185 of 2021, under Section 133 Cr.P.C.

3. In short, the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner have encroached the public road by making illegal construction.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is owner of part of land Araji No.56 situated at Village-Biharipur, Pargana Richha, Tehsil Bahedi, District Bareilly. The respondent no.2 has filed an application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. before the Sub Divisional Magistrate in which the petitioner has appeared and filed objection. The Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 19.07.2022 directed the Inspector Incharge to get remove the encroachment over the land in dispute. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed Criminal Revision No.297 of 2022 in which the opposite party no.2 appeared and filed objection. The said revision was rejected by the learned District and Session Judge, Bareilly vide order dated 14.12.2022 confirming the order dated 19.07.2022 passed by S.D.M. Further submission is that learned SDM has relied upon the inquiry report of Lekhpal and report of police, which is against the facts. The road in question is not a public road, rather the petitioner is in possession since his ancestors. The latrine tank has been constructed over the land of the petitioner, which is private land of the petitioner. Further submission is that the revisional court has illegally relied upon the report of Lekhpal denying the report of Ameen, who has given its report that the land in question is not a public road. The village map clearly shows that there is no public road over Araji No.56. The courts below have not examined the record of the case properly and passed their respective orders in a arbitrary manner.

5. Learned AGA vehemently opposed the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Perusal of inquiry report submitted by Tehsildar clearly shows that the petitioner has made illegal construction over the public road. The petitioner has stopped the road by making construction, therefore, on the basis of report submitted by Tehsildar, the proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. has rightly been issued against the petitioner.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and perused the impugned order as well as material brought on record, I am of the view that the impugned order is based upon relevant consideration and supported by cogent reasons, the same does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or infirmity requiring any interference by this Court.

8. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 19.5.2023

Ajeet