# Abhimanyu Prasad Ojha & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 915
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-16
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 15379 of 2019
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abhimanyu-prasad-ojha-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-53274
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law- The Constitution of India,
1950-Article 226 - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 133- That a wall
has been constructed on a public land by the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, which
is being used as a way to come on the main
way--- Petitioner admitted in his evidence/crossexamination that the wall was constructed by
predecessor in-interest of the petitioners---The
only plea has been taken that since the finding
has been recorded that in case adjacent to the
same if construction is made in future, the
public way may be obstructed, whereas, the
order could not have been passed merely on the
basis of presumption of happening in the future,
but it cannot be disputed that the wall has been
constructed on a public land and as per Section
133 Cr.P.C., the unlawful obstruction or
nuisance over any public place or over any way,
river or channel which is or may be lawfully
used by the public is required to be removed---
Any person cannot unlawfully obstruct or create
nuisance on a public place or over any way and
if it has been done or construction is raised, the
same is liable to be removed under Section 133
Cr.P.C---Merely because it may not have
completely created obstruction to the public, it
cannot be said that the person, who has created
such an obstruction or nuisance, can be allowed
to continue with the same.

Writ petitions dismissed. (Para 17) (E-15)

List of Cases referred-:

## Text

4 All. Abhimanyu Prasad Ojha & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
915
witness or witness already examined or to
summon any witness even if the evidence
on both sides is closed so long as the Court
retains seisin of the criminal proceeding.
Ref. Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of
India30.

41. In view of the aforementioned
facts and circumstances, we are not
inclined to make any such observation,
which may impinge the right of the parties
and may also vitiate the trial and
accordingly, we are not inclined to exercise
our discretionary jurisdiction under Article
226 of Constitution of India.

42. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ
petition is dismissed.

43. It is made clear that this Court has
not expressed any views on the merits of
the matter and the trial court is at liberty to
proceed in accordance with law.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 915
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 15379 of 2019
And
Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 17172 of 2019

Abhimanyu Prasad Ojha & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Anil Kumar Tripathi, Anil Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Faiz Ahmad Khan, Indrajeet Shukla,
Santosh Kumar Gupta

Criminal Law- The Constitution of India,
1950-Article 226 - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 133- That a wall
has been constructed on a public land by the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, which
is being used as a way to come on the main
way--- Petitioner admitted in his evidence/crossexamination that the wall was constructed by
predecessor in-interest of the petitioners---The
only plea has been taken that since the finding
has been recorded that in case adjacent to the
same if construction is made in future, the
public way may be obstructed, whereas, the
order could not have been passed merely on the
basis of presumption of happening in the future,
but it cannot be disputed that the wall has been
constructed on a public land and as per Section
133 Cr.P.C., the unlawful obstruction or
nuisance over any public place or over any way,
river or channel which is or may be lawfully
used by the public is required to be removed---
Any person cannot unlawfully obstruct or create
nuisance on a public place or over any way and
if it has been done or construction is raised, the
same is liable to be removed under Section 133
Cr.P.C---Merely because it may not have
completely created obstruction to the public, it
cannot be said that the person, who has created
such an obstruction or nuisance, can be allowed
to continue with the same.

Writ petitions dismissed. (Para 17) (E-15)

List of Cases referred-:

1. Joginder Singh Vs St. of Har. & ors.; 2021 (2)
R.C.R. (Civil) 109

2. Jagpal Singh & ors.Vs St. of Pun. & ors.; AIR
2011 SC 1123

3. Sri Krishna Vs St. of U.P. & ors.

4. Gurmukh Singh Vs St. of Pun. & ors.by the
High
Court
of
Punjab
and
Haryana
at
Chandigarh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Hon'ble Rajnish
Kumar, J.)
916 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Tripathi,
Advocate holding brief of Shri Anil Kumar
Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners
in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.- 15379
of 2019 and learned counsel for the
petitioners in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.- 171721 of 2019, Shri Rajesh Kumar
Shukla, learned State Counsel and Shri
Santosh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for
the private respondent in both the petitions.

2. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
15379 of 2019 has been filed assailing the
order dated 30.11.2018 passed in Case No.
80 under Section 133 of Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.)
by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tarabganj,
District-Gonda and the judgment and order
dated 21.05.2019 passed in Criminal
Revision No. 318 of 2018; Rajkishore Ojha
(Deceased) substituted by legal heirs
Abhimanyu Prasad Ojha and others vs.
State of U.P. and another and Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 17172 of 2019 has
been filed assailing the order dated
30.05.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate,
Tehsil-Tarabganj,
DistrictGonda, by means of which he has directed
to the In-charge Inspector, Dehat Kotwali,
Gonda for compliance of the order dated
30.11.2018 in pursuance of the order dated
21.05.2019 passed by the Session Judge
Gonda. Thus, both the petitions have been
clubbed together and are being decided by
this common judgment and order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that in view of the report
submitted by the Tehsildar, Tarabganj,
District Gonda, there was no dispute
between the petitioners and the private
respondent and the public way was not
restrained by the petitioners, but without
considering it, the learned Sub-Divisional
Magistrate passed the impugned order
dated 30.11.2018 on the ground that in case
in future any construction is raised by the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners i.e.
Rajkishore Ojha, then the public way will
be disturbed. Thus, the order has been
passed merely on presumption that the
public way will be disturbed in future,
whereas on the basis of mere presumption
that the public may be disturbed in future,
the order cannot be passed under Section
133 Cr.P.C. He further submits that during
pendency of the revision, the revisional
court also passed the impugned judgment
and order dated 21.05.2019, without
considering the grounds raised by the
petitioners. He further submitted that
during pendency of the Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 15379 of 2019, the order
passed by the learned Sub Divisional
Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge, the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Tarabganj,
District-Gonda directed to the In-charge
Inspector for compliance of the order
passed by him, whereas the same could not
have been issued, therefore Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 17172 of 2019 was filed.
Thus, the submission is that the impugned
judgment and orders are not sustainable in
the eyes of law and liable to be set aside by
this Court.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
private respondent in both the petitions
submitted that the impugned judgment and
orders have rightly been passed in
accordance with law after considering the
report of the Tehsildar and the evidence on
record and the admission of the witnesses
of the petitioners that the petitioners had
constructed a wall on public land, which
was being used as a way, therefore, merely
because the report indicates that in case, he
constructs further wall in future the public
way may be disturbed, it cannot be said that
the impugned judgment and orders have
4 All. Abhimanyu Prasad Ojha & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
917
been passed merely on presumption of
happening in future. Thus, the writ petitions
have been filed on misconceived and
baseless grounds and the same are liable to
be dismissed. He relied on Jagpal Singh
and others vs. State of Punjab and
others; AIR 2011 SC 1123, judgment and
order dated 02.03.2021 passed in Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1474 of
2020; Sri Krishna vs. State of U.P. and 4
others by a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court and judgment and order dated
09.09.2021 passed in CWP No. 17706 of
2021; Gurmukh Singh vs. State of
Punjab and others by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

5. I have considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.

6. The application was filed by Shri
Balak Ram Tiwari resident of Madhavpur
(Gajadharpurwa), Police Station Kotwali
Dehat, District Gonda on 08.12.2017 under
Section 133 Cr.P.C. for removal of the wall
constructed by the predecessor-in-interest
of the petitioners i.e. Raj kishore Ojha on
public land. It was stated in the application
that on 18.09.2017 adjacent to the plot of
the applicant in 0.08 dismil land of
Bhumidhari Gata No. 202/48, a wall was
constructed by Raj kishore, predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners, obstructing the
way of the applicant because the main way
and sehan is on the western side towards
the pond. He has filled the pond and
claiming
right
over
it.
There
is
unconstructed way in the just western side
of Gata No. 225 and 0.60 acre land is in the
shape of pond and belongs to Gram Sabha,
which
is
a
government
land.
The
allegations made in the application were
got inquired from the Tehsildar Tarabganj.
On account of consolidation process, the
inquiry was made jointly by the revenue
and consolidation departments. In the
report, it was stated that it has been alleged
by the applicant that the wall has been
constructed on Gata No. 225, which is a
pond land. The total area of Gata No. 225 is
5.30 acre, out of which 0.15 dismil land i.e.
0.5 dismil each was recorded in the name
of three tenure holders having transferable
rights. No part of it is in water or recorded
as pond adjacent to Gata No.225/5.15 acre
and Gata No. 202 is situated, which is a
transferable land, in which Balak Ram
Tiwari has purchased a plot on the western
side of the said plot. There is a public way
in the gata of abadi, which connects Majre
Gajadharpurwa,
therefore
the
said
constructed road is being used by the
parties as well as the villagers for
commutation. On the eastern side of the
public way adjacent to the plot of the
applicant, the respondent has constructed a
wall, which is about 30 feet long and 6 feet
height. The place where the wall has been
constructed, it is not justifiable to construct
a wall because the said land is neither near
to the house of the respondent nor to the
sehan. In case, in future the respondent
makes any construction adjacent to the
same, then the public way may also be
obstructed and on account of construction
of wall infront of the plot of Balak Ram
Tiwari, (which is on way on the land of
abadi), the applicant-Balak Ram Tiwari and
other villagers would have difficulty in
reaching on the way, therefore the same is
liable to be removed. Taking cognizance of
the said report dated 19.04.2018 submitted
by Tehsildar Tarabganj, the proceedings
under Section 133 Cr.P.C. were initiated
and the conditional order (notice) was
issued.

7.

The
respondent
i.e.
the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners
918 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
filed an objection dated 14.05.2018 against
the said notice stating therein that the Gata
No. 225 situated in Village-Madhavpur,
Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District
Gonda is abadi land since a long time, in
which the house of the applicant-the
objector and other villagers are situated, in
the east of abadi Gata No. 202, which was
earlier in the shape of grove and the
applicant-objector is a co-tenure holder.
The house of the objector is situated in
Gata No. 225 on the boundary of Gata No.
202, in which the wall of the objector is
standing from north to south since a long
time. There was no way of going from this
wall and sehan land of the applicant. The
applicant-Balak Ram Tiwari is a co-tenure
holder in Gata No. 202. He has got filled
the plinth on the same without any
partition, in which there is no wall or roof.
He also does not reside in the same. On the
eastern boundary of Gata No. 202,
khadanja has been constructed and the
applicant has way for his commutation to
his plinth from the same. The land in
dispute has never been a public way, thus,
the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

8. Shri Balak Ram Tiwari, the private
respondent filed a reply dated 11.06.2018
to the objection admitting that he is cotenure holder of Gata No. 202 and the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners i.e.
Raj kishore has no concern with the said
land. He has constructed the wall with an
intention to close the public way. The
construction has been made obstructing
the way to the pond from the front of the
applicant, thus, the objection is liable to be
rejected.

9. The additional objection was filed
by the predecessor-in-interest of the
petitioners i.e. Rajkishore on 23.7.2018
stating therein that in the map of Gata No.
225, there is no way. The affidavits of
Arjun Prasad, Harish, Dwarikanath, Lalji,
Vijaynath,
Basdev,
Mata
Prasad,
Rambaran, Ashok Kumar, Radheyshyam
Ojha,
Omprakash,
Rameshchandra,
Dinesh
Kumar,
Shivanand
and
Indrabhushan Ojha dated 13.08.2018 were
filed on behalf of the applicant-Raj
Kishore i.e. the petitioners. The crossexamination
of
Arjun
Prasad,
Indrabhushan
Ojha,
Mishrilal
Ojha,
Vijaynath and Omprakash were recorded.
Though the witnesses mainly stated that
the Gata No. 225 has always been
recorded as abadi in the revenue records
and not pond and it has also been stated
that the way of anybody has not been
obstructed on account of construction of
wall in Gata No. 225, but Shri Mishri Lal
Ojha son of the objector-Raj Kishore
stated in his cross-examination dated
03.10.2018 that he has not constructed the
wall in the public way but the wall has
been constructed by Raj Kishore i.e. his
father.

10. The affidavit dated 15.10.2018 of
Gangasaran
Ojha,
Virendra
Kumar,
Ramprakash Ojha and Phoolchandra were
filed on behalf of Balak Ram Tiwari i.e.
private respondent and cross objection of
Phoolchandra Ojha, Virendra Kumar and
Ramprakash Ojha were also recorded.
They
stated
that
Raj
Kishore
had
constructed a wall adjacent to the plot of
Balak Ram on the eastern side of the
public way, which is not adjacent to his
house and sehan and there is no
justification of the said land. In case, any
construction is made on the said wall, then
public way would be obstructed. In the
cross-examination of Phoolchandra Ojha,
Virendra Kumar and Ramprakash Ojha,
they have stated that the wall has been
constructed on the part of public way, on
4 All. Abhimanyu Prasad Ojha & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
919
account of which, the way of Balak Ram
Tiwari and other villagers is obstructed.

11. In view of above, it is apparent
that a wall has been constructed by the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners i.e.
Raj Kishore on a part of public land on
Gata No. 225, which is being used as a
public way.

12. Section 133 Cr.P.C. provides that
whenever a report or other information is
received, the District Magistrate or SubDivisional
Magistrate
or
any
other
Executive
Magistrate
specifically
empowered in this behalf by the State
Government on taking such evidence, (if
any), it is found that 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, such Magistrate may make a
conditional order requiring the person
causing such obstruction or nuisance etc. to
remove such obstruction or nuisance etc.
within a time to be fixed in the order or if
he objects so to do, then to show cause why
the order should not be made absolute.
Thereafter, after following the procedure
prescribed under Section 141 Cr.P.C., the
order may be made absolute under Section
138 of Cr.P.C.

13. Section 134 Cr.P.C. provides the
manner of service on the person against
whom it is made and modification of order.
Section 135 Cr.P.C. provides that the
person against whom such order is made
shall perform the act directed thereby
within the time specified or show cause
against the same. Section 136 provides the
procedure where existence of public right is
denied. It provides that where an order is
made under Section 133 CrP.C., the
Magistrate shall, or on the appearance
before him of the person against whom the
order was made inquire into the matter
before proceeding under Section 138
Cr.P.C. Sub-section (2) of Section 137
provides that if in such inquiry the
Magistrate finds that there is any reliable
evidence in support of such denial, he shall
stay the proceedings until the matter of the
existence of such right has been decided by
a competent Court; and if he finds that
there is no such evidence, he shall proceed
as laid down in section 138. Section 138
provides the procedure where the person
against whom the order/notice has been
issued appears to show cause and if the
person shows cause against the order, the
Magistrate shall take evidence in the matter
as in a summons-case. Sub-section (2)
provides that if the Magistrate is satisfied
that the order, either as originally made or
subject
to
such modification
as
he
considers necessary, is reasonable and
proper, the order shall be made absolute
without modification or, as the case may
be, with such modification. Sub-section (3)
provides that if the Magistrate is not
satisfied, no further proceedings shall be
taken in the case. Section 139 provides the
power of Magistrate to direct local
investigation and examination of an expert
for the purposes of inquiry under Section
137 Cr.P.C. Section 140 provides the power
of Magistrate to furnish written instructions
etc. for investigation under Section 139
Cr.P.C. Section 141 provides the procedure
on order being made absolute under
Section 136 Cr.P.C. or Section 138 Cr.P.C.
and consequences of disobedience. Section
142 provides that if a Magistrate making an
order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. considers
that immediate measures should be taken to
prevent imminent danger or injury of a
serious kind to the public, he may issue an
injunction pending determination of the
matter. Section 143 Cr.P.C. provides that
920 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Magistrate may prohibit repetition of
public nuisance.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Jagpal Singh and others vs.
State of Punjab and others (Supra), has
held that the trespassers, who have illegally
encroached on the Gram Panchayat land by
using muscle power or money power and in
collusion with the officials and even with
the Gram Panchayat, such kind of blatant
illegalities must not be condoned and
even if the appellants have built houses
on the land in question they must be
ordered to remove their constructions
and possession of the land in question
must be handed back to the Gram
Panchayat. The relevant paragraphs 13
to 23 are reproduced herein:-

"13. We find no merit in this
appeal. The appellants herein were
trespassers who illegally encroached on
to the Gram Panchayat land by using
muscle power/money power and in
collusion with the officials and even
with the Gram Panchayat. We are of the
opinion that such kind of blatant
illegalities must not be condoned. Even
if the appellants have built houses on
the land in question they must be
ordered to remove their constructions,
and possession of the land in question
must be handed back to the Gram
Panchayat.
Regularizing
such
illegalities
must
not
be
permitted
because it is Gram Sabha land which
must be kept for the common use of
villagers of the village. The letter dated
26.9.2007 of the Government of Punjab
permitting regularization of possession
of these unauthorized occupants is not
valid. We are of the opinion that such
letters are wholly illegal and without
jurisdiction.
In
our
opinion
such
illegalities cannot be regularized. We
cannot allow the common interest of the
villagers to suffer merely because the
unauthorized occupation has subsisted
for many years.

14. In M.I. Builders (P) Ltd.
vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu, 1999(6) SCC
464
the
Supreme
Court
ordered
restoration of a park after demolition of
a shopping complex constructed at the
cost of over Rs.100 crores. In Friends
Colony Development Committee vs.
State of Orissa, 2004 (8) SCC 733 this
Court held that even where the law
permits compounding of unsanctioned
constructions,
such
compounding
should only be by way of an exception.
In our opinion this decision will apply
with even greater force in cases of
encroachment of village common land.
Ordinarily, compounding in such cases
should only be allowed where the land
has been leased to landless labourers or
members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes, or the land is actually being used
for a public purpose of the village e.g.
running a school for the villagers, or a
dispensary for them.

15. In many states Government
orders have been issued by the State
Government permitting allotment of Gram
Sabha land to private persons and
commercial enterprises on payment of some
money. In our opinion all such Government
orders are illegal, and should be ignored.

16. The present is a case of land
recorded as a village pond. This Court in
Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi, AIR
2001 SC 3215 (followed by the Madras
High Court in L. Krishnan vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, 2005(4) CTC 1 Madras) held
that land recorded as a pond must not be
allowed to be allotted to anybody for
construction of a house or any allied
purpose.
The
Court
ordered
the
4 All. Abhimanyu Prasad Ojha & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
921
respondents to vacate the land they had
illegally occupied, after taking away the
material of the house. We pass a similar
order in this case.

17. In this connection we wish to
say that our ancestors were not fools. They
knew that in certain years there may be
droughts or water shortages for some other
reason, and water was also required for
cattle to drink and bathe in etc. Hence they
built a pond attached to every village, a
tank attached to every temple, etc. These
were their traditional rain water harvesting
methods, which served them for thousands
of years.

18. Over the last few decades,
however, most of these ponds in our
country have been filled with earth and
built
upon
by
greedy
people,
thus
destroying their original character. This
has contributed to the water shortages in
the country.

19.
Also,
many
ponds
are
auctioned off at throw away prices to
businessmen for fisheries in collusion with
authorities/Gram Panchayat officials, and
even this money collected from these so
called auctions are not used for the
common benefit of the villagers but
misappropriated by certain individuals.
The time has come when these malpractices
must stop.

20. In Uttar Pradesh the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 was
widely misused to usurp Gram Sabha lands
either with connivance of the Consolidation
Authorities, or by forging orders purported
to have been passed by Consolidation
Officers in the long past so that they may
not be compared with the original revenue
record showing the land as Gram Sabha
land, as these revenue records had been
weeded out. Similar may have been the
practice in other States. The time has now
come to review all these orders by which
the common village land has been grabbed
by such fraudulent practices.

21. For the reasons given above
there is no merit in this appeal and it is
dismissed.

22. Before parting with this case
we give directions to all the State
Governments in the country that they
should prepare schemes for eviction of
illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram
Sabha/Gram
Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and
these must be restored to the Gram
Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common
use of villagers of the village. For this
purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State
Governments/Union Territories in India are
directed to do the needful, taking the help
of other senior officers of the Governments.
The said scheme should provide for the
speedy eviction of such illegal occupant,
after giving him a show cause notice and a
brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal
occupation or huge expenditure in making
constructions
thereon
or
political
connections must not be treated as a
justification for condoning this illegal act
or for regularizing the illegal possession.
Regularization should only be permitted in
exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been
granted
under
some
Government
notification to landless labourers or
members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes, or where there is already a school,
dispensary or other public utility on the
land.

23. Let a copy of this order be
sent to all Chief Secretaries of all States
and Union Territories in India who will
ensure strict and prompt compliance of this
order and submit compliance reports to this
Court from time to time."

15. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
in the case of Sri Krishna vs. State of U.P.
922 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and others (Supra) and a Division Bench
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in
the case of Gurmukh Singh vs. State of
Punjab and others (Supra), relying on
Jagpal Singh and others vs. State of
Punjab and others (Supra), have passed
the orders.

16. The aforesaid proposition has
been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Joginder Singh vs. State of
Haryana and others; 2021 (2) R.C.R.
(Civil) 109.

17. Adverting to the facts of the
present case, it is apparent that a wall has
been constructed on a public land by the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners,
which is being used as a way to come on
the main way. The petitioner no. 2-Mishri
Lal
Ojha
has
admitted
in
his
evidence/cross-examination that the wall
was constructed by predecessor-in-interest
of the petitioners. The only plea has been
taken that since the finding has been
recorded that in case adjacent to the same if
construction is made in future, the public
way may be obstructed, whereas, the order
could not have been passed merely on the
basis of presumption of happening in the
future, but it cannot be disputed that the
wall has been constructed on a public land
and as per Section 133 Cr.P.C., the
unlawful obstruction or nuisance over any
public place or over any way, river or
channel which is or may be lawfully used
by the public is required to be removed.
Thus,
any
person
cannot
unlawfully
obstruct or create nuisance on a public
place or over any way and if it has been
done or construction is raised, the same is
liable to be removed under Section 133
Cr.P.C. Merely because it may not have
completely created obstruction to the
public, it cannot be said that the person,
who has created such an obstruction or
nuisance, can be allowed to continue with
the same. Since the orders challenged in
earlier writ petition were neither stayed nor
modified, therefore, the learned Magistrate
had rightly and in acordance with law
directed for their execution. Learned
Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court
have passed the orders in accordance with
law on the basis of pleadings, evidence and
material on record, which does not suffer
from any illegality or error. Thus, it does
not call for any interference by this Court.
Both the writ petitions have been filed on
misconceived and baseless grounds, which
lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.

18. In view of above, both the writ
petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No. 15379 of 2019 and Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 17172 of 2019 are dismissed.
No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 922
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 16146 of 2024

Sai Nageswar Satchidanand ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dheeraj Singh (Bohra), Sri Sudeep Harkauli,
Sri Vaibhav, Sri Amit Saxena (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Ms. Ujjwal Gupta
Criminal Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Sections 226 & 243-R(b) - Indian Penal