Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing for the State respondents and Sri Puneet Chandra for respondent no.5. In view of the order proposed by the Court, notice to the private respondent nos.6, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 is dispensed with.
The petitioner by means of the instant petition assails the order dated 17.12.2020 passed in Case No.00891 of 2020 pending before the Additional Commissioner, Judicial, Ayodhya in Appeal No.207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Kalika Prasad and others Vs. Brij Shyam and others).
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the recorded tenure holder of the Gata No.409 measuring 0809 hectare situated in Village Asaidpur, Tehsil Gauriganj, District Amethi. It is further submitted that the other co-sharers who are the private respondents namely Rakesh Kumar, Avdhesh and Nirmala Devi herein have already sold their shares in favour of the State Government. The State Government has built a hospital on 09.11.2015. Opposite party no.6 had initially filed a suit u/s 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code wherein the petitioner was also a party. During the pendency of the suit for partition the respondent nos.5 U.P. Awas & Vikas Parishad, who was the constructing agency as authorized by the State Government had started raising construction and the grievance of the petitioner was that without demarcating the property the constructions may not be raised. In furtherance of the aforesaid, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing No.2407 (M/B) of 2020, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 04.02.2020 permitting the petitioner to file his objections before the authority concerned who was directed to decide the same in accordance with law.
In furtherance thereof, the petitioner had filed his objections. Considering the same, the S.D.O. Tehsil Gauriganj, District Amethi before whom the suit was pending called for a fresh report from the area lekhpal. The petitioner submits that the aforesaid report was misleading. The submission of the petitioner further is that the right of egress and ingress of the petitioner from his plot no.409 is being hampered which has not been correctly depicted and accordingly the petitioner alongwith other persons had moved another writ petition bearing W.P. No.13224 (M/S) of 2020 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appellate authority. The aforesaid liberty was granted by means of the order dated 23.09.2020.
Subsequently the petitioner raised his objections before the appellate authority i.e. opposite party no.2 who after hearing the petitioners by means of the order dated 13.10.2020 had passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo. It is the case of the petitioner that after order was passed upon an application filed by the opposite party no.8 raising an objection that the order dated 13.10.2020 was ex-parte, hence, the same be recalled and the appellate authority merely on the application of the opposite party no.8 recalled the order dated 13.10.2020 and being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the instant petition.
The sole grievance of the petitioner is that his right of ingress and egress to his plot no.409 is being obstructed. This Court by means of the order dated 13.01.2021 had granted three days time to the learned standing counsel to seek instructions in respect of the aforesaid fact that whether the construction of the hospital would cause any impediment in the right in ingress and egress of the petitioner. By a subsequent order dated 18.01.2021 the Court further directed the learned standing counsel to seek complete and clearer instructions indicating the placement of the hospital and the fields of the petitioner to clearly indicate whether the right of ingress and egress was available to the petitioner. In furtherance of the aforesaid, the learned standing counsel has submitted for the perusal of the Court the written instructions received alongwith a map, which is taken on record. From the perusal of the site plan submitted by the learned standing counsel alongwith the written instructions, it indicates that there is a main Gauriganj Amethi Road from where an inter-locking road has been shown which goes up to the place where the hospital has been constructed and the fields of the petitioner bearing plot no.409 apparently looks land locked. It has been pointed out by the learned standing counsel that from the inter-locking road i.e. rasta (chak marg) which is accessible and there is a placement of a gate which makes the said chak marg accessible both to the persons of the hospital as well as the persons of the residential colony which has been constructed for the hospital staff and doctors.
Be that as it may, the issue still remains whether a clear rasta is available to the petitioner or not. This being essentially a question of fact has to be considered by the authority before whom the matter is already siezed. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to intervene, however, given the facts and circumstances, it is provided that the petitioner shall approach the opposite party no.2 for an early disposal of his pending appeal which is said to be fixed on 08.02.2021. The appellate authority shall consider the rival submissions and also make an endeavour to ascertain the correct factual position and pass appropriate order deciding the appeal expeditiously preferably on the next date itself or if the same is not possible within two weeks thereafter. The petitioner undertakes that he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment.
Till 26.02.2021 or till the decision of the appeal whichever is earlier, the parties shall maintain the status quo as it exists today.
With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.1.2021 Ashok Gupta