Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1040 (ALL)

Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State Of U. P.

2024-04-10

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Chandra Kumar Rai, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Kailash Singh Yadav & Mr. Mahendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari & Mr. Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the private respondent no.6 and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-Gaon Sabha. 2. Brief facts of the case are that village-Dibui, Gaon Sabha-Pach Patiya, Block-Bhadohi, District-Bhadohi is a small village and total population of the village is about 200. One primary school is also situated in the aforementioned village. Plot no.265 area 0.038 hectare, plot no.76 area 0.193 hectare and plot no.77 area 0.043 hectare situated in the aforementioned village are recorded as Nali-Class 6 -1 category plot in the revenue records. Petitioner along with other villagers of the village filed application before the authorities with the prayer that the villagers of the village be provided passage/ road for ingress and egress in the village in question but authorities have not considered the grievance / prayer of the petitioner hence this public interest litigation for the following reliefs: "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos.2 & 3 to decide the representation dated 26.12.2013, moved by petitioner as well as other villagers before them. ii. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to take necessary action for constructing the road from the village-Dibui Gaon Sabha Panch Patiya, Block Bhadohi, Tahsil & District-Bhadohi to other villages in view of the representation dated 26.12.2013 moved by petitioner as well as other villagers." 3. This Court vide order dated 13.10.2020 directed the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent to obtain instruction in the matter. 4. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 13.10.2020, learned Standing Counsel placed the instruction before this Court. 5. This Court vide order dated 21.10.2020 further directed the District-Magistrate Bhadohi to get the spot inspected and file his personal affidavit stating as to how the State proposes to provide road for ingress and egress to the residents of the village. 6. 5. This Court vide order dated 21.10.2020 further directed the District-Magistrate Bhadohi to get the spot inspected and file his personal affidavit stating as to how the State proposes to provide road for ingress and egress to the residents of the village. 6. In compliance of the order dated 21.10.2020, personal affidavit dated 26.11.2020 was filed by District Magistrate, Bhadohi stating that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 21.10.2020 inquiry/ inspection was conducted by him along with other revenue authorities in which it has been found that abadi of village-Dibui is not connected with any road. It is further mentioned in the personal affidavit that part of the area of plot nos.76 & 77, which is recorded as Nali in the revenue records can be used for construction of road but bhumidhari plot nos.8, 9, 10 & 78 belonging to Ramesh Chandra Dubey shall not be affected by construction of road. The spot inspection report dated 10.11.2020, which is annexed along with the personal affidavit of District Magistrate, Bhadohi will be relevant for perusal which is as under: 7. On the impleadment application filed by Ramesh Chandra Dubey, this Court vide order dated 20.1.2021 directed for impleadment of Ramesh Chandra Dubey as respondent no.6 to the instant petition. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for respondent no.6 as well as learned State Counsel directed the District Magistrate to look into the feasibility of having a rasta on the land which the newly impleaded respondent no.6 desires to provide but personal bhumidhari land of respondent no.6 should not be touched, the District Magistrate was accordingly directed to submit a report in the matter. 8. In compliance of the order dated 20.1.2021, an affidavit dated 10.2.2021 has been filed by respondent no.2/ District Panchayat Raj Officer stating that enquiry/ inspection was conducted by the authorities and it has been found that in constructing the rasta in the village according to the proposal of respondent no.6/ Ramesh Chandra Dubey, the land of several tenure holder will be affected while according to earlier proposal nobody was affected. The order of District Magistrate is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit dated 10.2.2021. 9. The order of District Magistrate is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit dated 10.2.2021. 9. Respondent no.6 has filed his counter affidavit dated 26.3.2021 that stand of the district authorities for construction of road / link road in the village is not proper as 6 biswa bhumidhari land of respondent no.6 will be affected if the stand of district authorities is accepted but nobody will be affected if the proposal of respondent no.6 is accepted. In one affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.6 the fact about pendency of Civil Suit No.472 of 2011 and grant of temporary injunction in Civil Suit No.472 of 2011 filed by respondent no.6 in respect to plot no.8, 9, 10 & 11 is also mentioned. 10. Petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit also. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proper direction be issued to the authorities for construction of passage / link road in the village in question so that the villagers may not suffer. He further submitted that the villagers are continuously approaching the authorities for providing link road but no proper steps has been taken by the authorities. He further submitted that several plots in the village are recorded as chak road/ main road but there is no single link road available in the village, which is wholly illegal. He further submitted that the villagers have been totally deprived from the road facility, as such, authorities be directed to take proper steps for construction of link road in the village in question. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2018 (141) RD 167, Vaibhav Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others as well as 2018 (140) RD 22 , Usha Devi vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation in support of his argument. He further submitted that in view of the provisions contained under Section 29C of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the application / representation filed by the petitioner along with the villagers of the village is to be examined in accordance with law. 12. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted that in the year 2021 inquiry/ inspection was conducted in which it has been found that the proposal which was made by Ramesh Chandra Dubey is not feasible as by accepting the proposal, several villagers/ tenure holders will be affected. 12. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted that in the year 2021 inquiry/ inspection was conducted in which it has been found that the proposal which was made by Ramesh Chandra Dubey is not feasible as by accepting the proposal, several villagers/ tenure holders will be affected. He further submitted that respondent no.6 is not ready according to the proposal of the district authorities, as such, it is not possible to construct the link road in the village. 13. Learned counsel for respondent no.6 submitted that link road should be constructed according to the proposal of respondent no.6 but authorities are not accepting the proposal of respondent no.6 rather they want to construct link road affecting the valuable bhumidhari plot of respondent no.6. 14. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 15. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the order dated 8.2.2021 along with the report sent by the authorities, which is annexed along with the affidavit of District Panchayat Raj Officer as Annexure No.1 will be relevant for perusal, which is as under: 16. It is also material that one civil suit filed by respondent no.6 is stated to be pending in Civil Court and temporary injunction in respect to plot nos.8, 9, 10 & 11 is operating. 17. The law is also settled that category of plot cannot be changed by the authorities. 18. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case specially the facts mentioned in the report as well as the order dated 8.2.2021 as quoted above, no direction can be issued by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of public interest litigation for construction of the link road in the village in question. 19. The instant public interest litigation is misconceived and the same is dismissed accordingly.