Allahabad High Court

MOTI LALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHER

Decided: 17 May 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

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

Summary

Moti Lal filed a public interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Uttar Pradesh revenue authorities to implement an order dated 17 July 2025 under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which directed eviction of encroachers from public land. The petitioner argued that despite the order, no action had been taken to vacate the land. The respondents, through the Standing Counsel, raised a preliminary objection citing the Division Bench judgment in Manbhavati v. State of U.P. (2020) and Brij Bhushan Rai v. State of U.P. (2018), contending that writ petitions are not maintainable for execution of revenue orders and that the remedy lies in the provisions of paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. The Court agreed with the respondents, holding that the writ petition was not the appropriate forum for execution of the revenue order. Consequently, the petition was disposed, with the Court allowing 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 an order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing revenue authorities to enforce such an order.
Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the U.P. Revenue Court Manual.

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67

Subjects

Public Interest Litigation
Mandamus
Execution of Revenue Order
Section 67
U.P. Revenue Code
Revenue Court Manual
Writ Jurisdiction

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1270 of 2026

Moti Lal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Other
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rampyare Lal Srivastava, Subash
Chandra Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents State and Sri Sudhir Bharti, 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 commanding the
respondents state authorities to respondent no.2 to 4 to comply the order dated
17.07.2025 passed by respondent no.4 in Computerized case no.T202505470406918
(case no.6918/2025) (Gaon Sabha vs Shankar) under section 67 of U.P. Revenue
Code 2006 situated at Village-Bargadwa Ramsahay, Tehsil-Farenda, District-
Mahrajganj against respondent no.6 is illegally occupied the public land (Gaddha)
(Annexure No.2 of this writ petition)."

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order under
Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has 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
WPIL No. 1270 of 2026
2

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
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 18, 2026
Anil

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…