Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue ... on 28 October, 2025
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:66866-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 174 of 2025
Jitendra Kumar Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Sachin Tiwari, Manisha Devi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. (Order on I.A. No.1 of 2025-Delay)
1. Heard learned counsel for the review-applicant.
2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the review application. There is delay of 29 days in filing the review application.
3. We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, wherein it has been stated by the applicant that he was not arrayed as opposite party in Writ-C No.7876 of 2025 (Mahranidin vs. State of U.P. and others) and therefore, he had no knowledge of the order passed by this Court on 18.8.2025. He derived knowledge only when interlocking pathway, that was constructed between Village Handour and Village Gahri, connecting the two Villages, was being uprooted. He was told, on enqury, that this Court had passed an order on 18.8.2025. The review applicant has approached this Court without any intentional delay.
4. We find the explanation given in the affidavit to be sufficient to condone the delay.
5. The application is allowed and the delay in filing the review application is condoned.
(Order on Review Application)
6. This is a review application praying for review of the order dated 18.8.2025.
7. It is the case of the review applicant that he is the resident of Village Handour and the authorities have constructed a pathway in east-west direction from Village Gahri to Village Handour to enable the villagers to use the same to go from one Village to another. Because of the order dated 18.8.2025, the interlocking tiles on the pathway has been uprooted and the review applicant has not been able to go to Village Gahri.
8. This Court having perused the order dated 18.8.2025 finds that the order was passed on the basis of written instructions, that were sent by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Lalganj, District Pratapgarh, wherein it had been admitted that Gata no.458 Minjumla and Gata No.458Kha were recorded as Bhoomidhari land of the petitioner-Mahranidin and one Ramdev. No proceedings for acquisition of land required to construct the pathway were taken by the authorities and interlocking was done on part of the land belonging to the petitioner-Mahranidin for use of villagers to proceed to and fro from Village Gahri to Village Handour. Therefore, this Court directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned to ensure that the interlocking tiles road is removed from the land of the petitioner-Mahranidin. This Court also directed issuance of a show cause notice to the Village Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Handour, who had used public money to lay the interlocking tiles on the private land of the petitioner-Mahranidin without any authority of law.
9. We find no good ground to show interference in the order dated 18.8.2025.
10. The review application is dismissed.
(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) October 28, 2025 Sachin