Allahabad High Court
PREM CHANDRA MAURYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 25 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
A writ petition cannot be entertained for the execution of revenue orders; the petitioner must pursue the specific remedial procedure prescribed in the U.P. Revenue Court Manual.
Summary
The petitioner, Prem Chandra Maurya, filed a public interest litigation seeking a direction to the State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents to enforce eviction and damage recovery orders issued by the Tehsildar of Kasimabad on 25 September 2025 and 6 March 2025 concerning public‑utility land in Village Bahlalpur. The petitioner alleged that despite the revenue orders, the encroachments remained and the orders were not implemented. The respondents raised a preliminary objection, 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), contending that a writ petition cannot be used to execute revenue orders. They further cited paragraph 460 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Court Manual, which provides a specific remedial procedure for execution of such orders. The Court agreed that the writ petition was not the appropriate vehicle for enforcement and declined to interfere, directing the petitioner to pursue the remedy available under the Revenue Court Manual. Consequently, the petition was disposed without any order directing execution of the revenue orders.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for the purpose of executing orders passed by revenue authorities under Section 67 of the Code
- Whether the provisions of paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual provide an exclusive remedy for enforcement of such orders
- Whether the precedents in Manbhavati v. State of U.P. and Brij Bhushan Rai v. State of U.P. preclude the Court from entertaining the petition
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 67
- U.P. Revenue Court Manual — s. 460
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- revenue orders
- eviction
- execution of decree
- maintainability
- U.P. Revenue Court Manual
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1262 of 2026
Prem Chandra Maurya
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 25 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Binod Kumar, Mani Shankar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent
authorities to implement the orders passed by Tehsildar, Kasimabad,
Ghazipur, dated 25.09.2025 and 06.03.2025, directing eviction of
encroachers and recovery of damages in respect of land reserved for
public utility services in Village Bahlalpur, Tehsil Kasimabad, District
Ghazipur.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
aforementioned orders have 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
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
WPIL No. 1262 of 2026
2
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 18, 2026
Ashok Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…