Allahabad High Court
SUKHVEER SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The petition for mandamus is not maintainable; the petitioner must seek execution of the eviction order through the alternative remedy under the Revenue Court Manual.
Summary
The petitioner, Sukhveer Singh, filed a public interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the State of Uttar Pradesh and others to remove an illegal encroachment on public utility land (Khasra No.100) and to enforce an eviction and damages order dated 16 November 2015 against respondent No.5. The eviction order was issued under Section 122B(4A) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which also classifies the land under section 77 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The respondents argued that the petition is not maintainable, relying on the division‑bench judgments in Manbhavati v. State of U.P. (2020 1 AWC 789A) and Brij Bhushan Rai v. State of U.P. (Writ C No. 7863 of 2018), and that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. The Court held that the petition cannot be entertained for execution of the revenue court order and directed the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner to avail the statutory alternative process.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition for mandamus is maintainable for the execution of a revenue court order under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
- Whether the petitioner must resort to the alternative remedy prescribed in paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- mandamus
- land encroachment
- execution of revenue court order
- alternative remedy
- Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1162 of 2026
Sukhveer Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Kumar Rai, Prajyot Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kaushal Kishore Mani
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani, Advocate has
accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4.
2. The present petition has been filed for the following relief:
"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding to the respondents to remove the illegal encroachment of the
private respondent from public utility land i.e. Khasra No.100 area
0.0067 hectare, situated at Village Dubhar Kishanpur recorded as Khad
ka Gaddha which falls into the category of 132 of the Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 corresponding to
section 77 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006."
3. It is evident from the averments made in the writ petition that proceedings
under Section 122B (4A) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 were initiated against the encroachers in which orders of eviction
and recovery of damages have already been passed against the respondent
no. 5.
4. The present petition is in fact for implementation of the order dated
16.11.2015, passed against the respondent no. 5.
5. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that the present
petition for execution of orders passed by the Revenue Court is not
maintainable in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in case
WPIL No. 1162 of 2026
2
of Manbhavati v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2020 1 AWC 789A
and Writ C No. 7863 of 2018 (Brij Bhushan Rai v. State of U.P. and 6
others). Moreover, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to get the orders
of eviction and recovery of damages executed under the provisions of
paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to
the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available to him under the
aforesaid provisions of law.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
May 5, 2026
Ranjeet Sahu
Digitally signed by :-
RANJEET SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…