Allahabad High Court

HARSHNARAYANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 18 OTHERS

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The writ petition is not maintainable for execution of revenue orders and is therefore dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to implement a 2008 order of a revenue court under sections 33 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act, which directed registration of an FIR against certain employees and parties. The petitioner argued that despite several revenue orders for eviction and damages, no action had been taken to vacate the land. The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable for execution of revenue orders, relying on the Division Bench judgment 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), as well as paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual which provides a specific remedial procedure. The Court held that the petition fell within the scope of the revenue court’s execution mechanism and therefore could not be entertained under its writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was disposed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the remedy available under the revenue court manual.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained for the execution of orders passed by revenue authorities under the Land Revenue Act.
Whether the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual bar the High Court from interfering in the execution of such revenue orders.

Legislation cited

Land Revenue Act — s. 33, 39

Subjects

Public Interest Litigation
Mandamus
Land Revenue Act
Execution of Decree
Revenue Court Manual
Jurisdiction
Writ Petition

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1199 of 2026

Harshnarayan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 18 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kalamuddin, M.A. Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, C.S.C.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents State and Sri Rajan Chauhan, holding brief of Sri Azad
Rai, learned counsel for the 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
respondents to comply the order dated 19.04.2008 passed by respondent No.3 in
proceeding under section 33/39 Land Revenue Act Case No. 148/179 of 1997-98-08
(Gram Sabha Vs. Phool Chand) (Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition) whereby First
Information Report to be registered against the employees involve in the first lease
allotment and respondent Nos. 6 to 19."

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that several orders
have been passed by the revenue authorities 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
Standing Counsel that in view of provisions of paragraph no. 460 of the
WPIL No. 1199 of 2026
2

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…