Allahabad High Court

RAJENDRA SINGHversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 6 OTHERS

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The writ petition is not maintainable for execution of the revenue order; the petitioner must seek remedy under the U.P. Revenue Court Manual.

Summary

The petitioner filed a PIL seeking a mandamus directing the State respondents to implement a revenue order dated 31 July 2025 that ordered removal of illegal encroachment on public utility land. The petitioner argued that the order under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, had not been executed. The State raised a preliminary objection, relying on precedents (Manbhavati v. State of U.P. and Brij Bhushan Rai v. State of U.P.) that writ petitions cannot be used to enforce revenue orders, and cited paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual which provides a specific remedial procedure. The court held that the petition was not maintainable for execution of the revenue order and declined to interfere, directing the petitioner to pursue the remedy available under the manual. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with liberty to approach the appropriate revenue forum.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for the execution of an order passed by revenue authorities under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
Whether paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual provides an exclusive remedy that bars judicial interference

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67

Subjects

PIL
mandamus
execution of revenue order
illegal encroachment
U.P. Revenue Code
Revenue Court Manual
maintainability of writ

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1191 of 2026

Rajendra Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

The State Of Uttar Pradesh And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Singh, Dharmendra Kumar Singh,
Hitesh Kumar Mishra
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, learned Standing Counsel for
the State respondents and Sri Prem Bahadur Singh, holding brief of Sri R.
P. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Gaon Sabha.

2. This petition has been filed for the following relief:

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to forthwith execute and
implement the order dated 31.07.2025 passed in Case Nos.
3347 of 2025 and 3348 of 2025 under Section 67 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, and to remove the illegal encroachment
made by respondent nos. 5 and 6 from Arazi No. 187/348
(public utility land)"

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
aforementioned order has been passed by the revenue authorities for
removal of illegal encroachment, but the same have not been given effect
to.

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 authorities. It has been further submitted by learned Standing
WPIL No. 1191 of 2026
2

Counsel that in view of provisions of paragraph no. 460 of the U.P.
Revenue Court Manual, the petitioners have 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, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.

6. Accordingly, the 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
Ashok Kr.

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…