Allahabad High Court

MAHENDRA PRASADversusSANJAY DUBEY AND ANOTHER

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: VIKAS BUDHWAR

Holding

No contempt lies as the order can be executed under Paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual.

Summary

The applicant filed a contempt application alleging willful defiance of a High Court order dated 24‑11‑2025 directing the removal of an illegal encroachment on public utility land, an order that had been issued in a public interest litigation (P.I.L.) and upheld on appeal under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The court observed that the appropriate remedy for execution of the revenue order is provided under Paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, and that the P.I.L. was not the correct vehicle for enforcement. Consequently, the court held that the applicant must pursue execution through the prescribed revenue procedure and that no contempt of court arises from the alleged non‑compliance. The contempt application was therefore consigned to the record, effectively dismissing it, and the applicant was directed to use the statutory remedy for expeditious disposal.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant’s failure to comply with the High Court order amounts to contempt of court.
Whether a public interest litigation is the proper forum for execution of an order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. Section 67
U.P. Revenue Court Manual — s. Paragraph 460

Subjects

contempt of court
public interest litigation
execution of revenue order
U.P. Revenue Code
Paragraph 460
civil contempt

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6076 of 2026

Mahendra Prasad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

Sanjay Dubey And Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Upendra Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

Court No. - 53
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. The present contempt application has been preferred alleging willful
defiance of the order dated 24.11.2025 passed in P.I.L. No. 3689 of 2025,
order whereof is quoted herein under:-

"1. Heard Mr. Jai Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar
Yadav, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Mr. Azad Rai, learned
counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.
2. The instant Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) has been filed for the following
relief:-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the
Respondents No.2 to 4 to take legal steps against the encroacher/Respondent no.6 for
removal of the encroachment nuisance and obstruction over the public utility land
bearing Arazi No.411Mi. Area 0.4240 hectare (New Arazi No.1224) and Arazi No.409
Area 0.0010 hectare (Juj part 0.0280 hectare) situated in Village Chauradeeh, Tehsil
Chayal, Police Station- Charwa, District-Kaushambi and same has been recorded in
revenue record as Pond and to restore the status of pond in its original nature, within
stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in compliance of orders dated
03.11.2023, 19.09.2025 & 15.10.2025 passed by Revenue Authorities itself;"
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the order passed by the
Tehsildar for ejectment and damages against private respondent, in respect to the plot
in question, in the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the
order has not been given effect on the spot. He submitted that appeal under Section
67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has also been dismissed by the appellate court.
He submitted that appropriate direction be issued for removal of illegal encroachment
CAPL No. 6076 of 2026
2

from the plot in question.
4. Learned standing counsel and the counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that the
instant public interest litigation for implementation/execution of the order passed in
the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is not maintainable.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that the order for ejectment and damages has
been passed by the Tehsildar in respect to the plot in question in the proceeding under
Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and order of Tehsildar has been
maintained in appeal.
7. For execution of the order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, remedy is provided under paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, as
such, the instant P.I.L. cannot be maintained for implementation/execution of the
order passed in the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
8. The P.I.L. is accordingly dismissed with observation that proper proceeding can be
initiated according to the provision contained under Para 460 of the U.P. Revenue
Court Manual in accordance with law."

2. A bare look of the order would reveal that in view of the remedy provided
under Paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Code Manual, the P.I.L. was
dismissed and it was left open for the applicant to initiate proceedings under
Paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Manual. In case the allegation of the
applicant is that the case has not been registered or it has not been decided as
per the mandate of the statute, then it is for the applicant to take appropriate
proceedings while seeking a direction for expeditious disposal in that regard.
A contempt would not lie.

3. Accordingly, the Contempt Application is consigned to record, leaving it
open to the applicant to take appropriate remedies as permissible under law.

September 8, 2026
N.S.Rathour

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…