The Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, presided over by Justice Rajeev Singh, has set aside a revisional court order that upheld the rejection of an application filed under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regarding an obstructed access route. Acting upon an on-site local inspection conducted by a court-appointed Advocate Commissioner, the Court found that the petitioner had no other way to reach the main road except through the disputed passage, and accordingly allowed the petition subject to the final outcome of an already pending civil suit.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) filed by one Indra Pal Tiwari, seeking the quashing of an order dated June 8, 2026, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Lucknow, in Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2026 (Mukesh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.).
The applicant had originally approached the lower court under Section 133 of the CrPC, alleging that he had only one access route to reach the main road, which was being obstructed by the private respondent, Mukesh Tiwari. While a civil suit for an injunction had also been instituted, the magistrate court rejected the Section 133 CrPC application, and a subsequent criminal revision challenging the rejection was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Aggrieved by these orders, the applicant invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS.
Arguments of the Parties
Before the High Court, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant has only one available route to access the main road, which has been in use for a long time and is located directly in front of the house of opposite party No. 2. Counsel contended that opposite party No. 2 had obstructed this path, causing hardship and depriving the applicant of essential ingress and egress.
On the other hand, learned counsel representing opposite party No. 2 resisted the petition by arguing that the applicant had other alternate ways available for ingress and egress. Consequently, the respondent asserted that his private land could not be claimed by the applicant as a rasta (passage).
Advocate Commissioner’s Report and Inspection
To resolve the conflicting factual assertions regarding the physical site, the Court, with the consent of counsel for both sides, had previously appointed an Advocate Commissioner, Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, to conduct a spot inspection. The Court had directed the Commissioner to ascertain whether any other public way or passage existed for the applicant or if the way in front of opposite party No. 2’s house was the sole access.
Pursuant to the directions, the Commissioner visited the site on August 16, 2026, prepared a site map (naksha nazri), and submitted his report. The inspection report noted that the applicant’s house lies adjacent to that of opposite party No. 2, with Mahendra Tiwari and others’ dilapidated structures lying to the south, and homes to the north leaving no vacant space. To the west of the houses lies open abadi land, which has historically been used as a passage by the applicant, opposite party No. 2, Baijnath, Mahendra Tiwari, and Devesh Tiwari.
The Advocate Commissioner specifically recorded:
“स्थलीय निरीक्षण अनुसार याची (इंद्र पाल तिवारी) के पास विपक्षी संख्या 2 (मुकेश तिवारी) के घर के सामने से होकर जाने के अलावा अन्य और कोई दूसरा रास्ता / मार्ग मौके पर नहीं है।” (According to the spot inspection, the petitioner has no other route/passage available on the spot except to pass in front of the house of opposite party No. 2.)
The report further highlighted that local villagers, speaking on condition of anonymity, affirmed that this specific stretch had been used by both parties for ingress and egress for several years. Examining the enclosed site map, the Court noted that a public hand pump is situated in front of the respondent’s residence and a common sahan land lies in front of the residences of the applicant, private respondent, and other neighbors.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Taking into account the submissions and the conclusive factual findings in the Commissioner’s report, the Court observed:
“Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and report of the Advocate Commissioner, it is evident that there is no other way to approach main land by the petitioner, therefore, petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order subject to the decision of the suit pending before the competent court.”
With these observations, Justice Rajeev Singh allowed the application, set aside the revisional court’s order dated June 8, 2026, and clarified that the relief remains subject to the final determination of the civil suit pending before the competent court.
Appearance
- For the Applicant: Piyush Pathak, Pranav Mishra
- For the Opposite Parties: Government Advocate (G.A.), Mukut Bihari Tripathi, Vishal Pradeep, Ram Tripathi, Ms. Lalita
Case Details:
- Case Title: Indra Pal Tiwari Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and another
- Case No.: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 2605 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Rajeev Singh
- Date: October 09, 2026
