Allahabad High Court
MADHAV RAJ GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND 9 OTHERS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed on merits/Rejected
Holding
Section 152 BNSS, 2023 does not confer jurisdiction on the magistrate to entertain disputes concerning private passages, and the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
Petitioner Madhav Raj Gupta filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate (SDM) to decide his application under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and a mandamus to restrain respondent No. 10 from obstructing his access to his house. The petitioner alleged that the respondent had blocked a passage, claiming it was a public passage, while the site plan showed it to be a private lane leading only to his residence. The Court examined the scope of Section 152, which deals with removal of nuisance from public places or pathways used by the public, and held that it does not extend to private property disputes. Consequently, the SDM lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's application. The Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it at the admission stage, directing the petitioner to approach a civil court for any private property claim.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 confers jurisdiction on a Sub‑Divisional Magistrate to adjudicate obstruction of a private passage.
- Whether the writ petition seeking mandamus and direction to the SDM is maintainable.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- jurisdiction
- public nuisance
- private passage
- Section 152
- civil suit
- High Court
- dismissal
- BNSS 2023
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 1 of 2026
Madhav Raj Gupta
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt.
Lko. And 9 Others .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sumit Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Surya Prakash Singh
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Sumit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
Sri Badrish Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State respondents and Sri Surya Prakash Singh, learned counsel appearing
for respondent no. 6.
2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has sought issuance of
a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kaiserganj, Bahraich to
forthwith decide the petitioner's application under Section 152 of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the
BNSS, 2023") and also to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the State
authorities to restrain respondent no. 10 from interfering with the
petitioner's access to his house.
3. It is noticed that previously, the petitioner's wife had approached this
Court by filing Writ - C No. 9899 of 2025 (Pramila Vs. State of U.P. and
6 Others), which was dismissed as withdrawn by means of order dated
08.10.2025, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition with
better particulars. Thereafter, the petitioner Madhav Raj Gupta preferred
Criminal Misc. Application (CRLP) No. 11495 of 2025 (Madhavraaj
Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Others) and that too was dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh, by means of order
dated 09.12.2025.
WRIC No. 1 of 2026
2
4. In the present writ petition the petitioner has pleaded that he had got the
Writ Petition No. 11495 of 2025, dismissed as withdrawn as respondent
no. 10 had given him assurance to amicably settle the dispute. It has been
further pleaded that petitioner and respondent no. 10 are related to each
other.
5. In the application filed under Section 152(1) of the BNSS, 2023, the
petitioner has pleaded that respondent no. 10 has obstructed the public
and ancestral passage. However, a copy of the site plan annexed with the
present writ petition indicates that the passage in question exists on a
private land and it leads to the petitioner's house only. It appears that the
passage is not a public passage.
6. Section 152 of BNSS, 2023 is contained in Part - B of Chapter 11.
Chapter 11, deals with maintenance of public order and tranquility. Part -
B of Chapter 12 of BNSS, 2023 contains provisions regarding public
nuisance. Chapter 11 of BNSS, 2023 is not intended to confer jurisdiction
on the authorities to adjudicate upon private property disputes between
private individuals. Allegations of obstruction of a private passage by a
private individual does not make out public nuisance. Section 152 of
BNSS contains provisions of removal of nuisance from any public place
or from any pathway which may be used by public. A bare perusal of
Section 152 of BNSS, 2023 makes it manifest that this provision is not
intended to confer any right on the State authorities in case of any
obstruction of any private passage by a private individual.
7. Accordingly, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has no jurisdiction to
interfere in the alleged obstructions created by respondent no.10 on a
private passage leading to the house of the petitioner.
8. Therefore, we do not find any good ground to issue any direction to the
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kaisarganj, Bahraich to decide application
under Section 152 of BNSS, 2023, filed by the petitioner.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, no good ground is found by us to
entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, present writ petition being devoid
of merits is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
WRIC No. 1 of 2026
3
10. However, it will be open for the petitioner to file a suit before the
competent civil Court, which shall be decided in accordance with law,
without being prejudiced by the dismissal of the present writ petition or
by the orders passed by this Court in the previous writ petitions.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)
January 3, 2026
A. Verma
Digitally signed by :-
ANURAG VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench
Checking your session…