Advocate Commissioner's Report Confirms No Alternative Passage Exists; Court Allows Petition Under Section 133 Cr.P.C., Subject to Outcome of Pending Civil Suit
In a significant judgment delivered on October 9, 2026, the Allahabad High Court, through Justice Rajeev Singh, set aside the orders passed by the lower courts that had rejected an application filed by Indra Pal Tiwari under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) concerning obstruction of access to his property. The Court's decision underscores the importance of safeguarding easement rights and the right of way, particularly where no alternative access routes exist.
The dispute originated when the private respondent allegedly obstructed Tiwari's only access to the main road, which runs through a common sahan (courtyard) land shared by several residents including Tiwari, the private respondent, Baijnath, Mukesh Tiwari, and Mahendra Tripathi. The applicant had initially sought relief under Section 133 Cr.P.C. to remove the obstruction, but the lower court dismissed his application. Subsequently, a revision petition filed by the applicant was also rejected.
The High Court, taking cognizance of the matter, appointed an Advocate Commissioner, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, to inspect the site and submit a report. The Commissioner's report, dated August 16, 2026, included detailed maps and photographs that clearly demonstrated that the only passage to the main road is through the common sahan land situated in front of the houses concerned. The report stated unequivocally that no other access route to the main road exists except through this common land.
Based on the Commissioner's findings and the submissions of counsel, the Court held that since the applicant had no alternative way to approach the main road, the obstruction constituted a violation of his right of way. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated June 8, 2026, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, which had dismissed the revision petition.
However, the Court clarified that its decision was subject to the outcome of a civil suit for injunction that was pending before a competent civil court, thereby balancing the criminal and civil remedies available to the parties.
This judgment is an important affirmation of the principle that where a person's only access to a public road is obstructed, immediate relief can be granted under Section 133 Cr.P.C. to remove such obstruction, protecting fundamental easement rights. It also highlights the role of Advocate Commissioners in assisting courts with fact-finding in property disputes.
Bottom Line:
Proceedings relating to obstruction of access way - Where Advocate Commissioner's report showed that applicant had no other passage to reach the main road except through common sahan land, rejection of application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and dismissal of revision were set aside, subject to decision of pending civil suit for injunction.
Statutory provision(s):
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 133, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
Indra Pal Tiwari v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2998106
