Allahabad High Court

AMBIKA PRASADversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable for execution of revenue court orders and therefore declined to grant mandamus.

Summary

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the State of U.P. and other respondents to remove illegal encroachments on Gata No. 199, 0.2000 hectares of land, based on earlier orders under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner argued that despite the revenue orders for eviction and damages, no execution had been effected. The respondents, through standing counsel, contended that such execution matters are not maintainable before the High Court, citing the Division Bench judgment in Manbhavati v. State of U.P. and the earlier writ of Brij Bhushan Rai, and pointing to paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual which provides a specific remedial procedure. The Court accepted this view, holding that the writ petition is not the appropriate forum for enforcing revenue orders. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, with the Court directing the petitioner to pursue the remedy available under the Revenue Court Manual.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for the execution of orders passed under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus directing removal of the encroachment.
Whether the provisions of paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual bar the High Court from interfering in the execution of revenue orders.

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67(1)

Subjects

public interest litigation
mandamus
U.P. Revenue Code
encroachment
execution of orders
Revenue Court Manual
writ jurisdiction

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1185 of 2026

Ambika Prasad
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

The State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepak Prajapati, Suresh Kumar
Maurya
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents State. Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla has accepted
notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:-

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent
authorities to remove the illegal encroachment of the respondent no.6 and 7 over the
Gata No. 199, area 0.2000 hect. hect. Chak Marg situated at village Bairadih Urf
Gambhirpur, Tehsil Nazimabad, District Azamgarh within the stipulated period in
pursuance of orders dated 28/11/2017 and 13/07/2022."

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that several orders
under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have been passed
against the encroachers for their eviction and recovery of damages.
However, no further action has been taken to get the land in question
vacated. The present petition is in fact for implementation of the orders
passed by the revenue authorities.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that in
view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case 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), the writ petition is not maintainable for execution of orders
passed by Revenue Court. It has been further submitted by learned
WPIL No. 1185 of 2026
2

Standing Counsel that in view of provisions of paragraph no. 460 of the
U.P. Revenue Court Manual, the petitioner has remedy for getting the
order implemented. For ready reference, paragraph no. 460 of the U.P.
Revenue Court Manual, is quoted as under:

"460. Execution of decree and order- (1) The decree or order passed under the Code
or the Rules framed under the Code shall, mutatis mutandis, be executed in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter V.

(2) The Assistant Collector/Tahsildar passing the order for eviction or recovery of any
amount of damages or compensation under the provisions of Section 67 of the Code
shall get the order executed and in execution of the order he shall, mutatis mutandis,
follow the procedure laid down in paragraphs 137 and 138."

5. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to pursue the remedy as available to him under law.

(Arun Kumar,J.)
May 6, 2026
Anil

Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…