Allahabad High Court

PANCHUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 17 May 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable for execution of revenue orders and dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the remedy provided under the U.P. Revenue Court Manual.

Summary

The petitioner, Panchu, filed a public interest litigation seeking a direction to the State of U.P. to remove illegal encroachments on three plots recorded as Banjar and Rasta in the revenue records of Village Aurahawa, Siddharth Nagar. The revenue authorities had earlier passed orders under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for eviction and recovery of damages, but no execution followed. The petitioner asked the High Court to enforce those orders. The respondents, 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), contended that a writ petition is not the proper forum for execution of revenue orders, pointing to paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual which provides a specific remedy. The Court agreed, holding that the writ petition was not maintainable for execution of the revenue orders and declined to interfere, disposing the petition while allowing the petitioner to pursue the remedy under the manual.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for the execution of orders passed by revenue authorities under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Whether the High Court can direct the State to enforce such revenue orders in a public interest litigation.

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67(1)
U.P. Revenue Court Manual — s. paragraph 460

Subjects

Public Interest Litigation
Encroachment
Revenue Law
Execution of Orders
Section 67
U.P. Revenue Code
Writ Petition
Jurisdiction

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1271 of 2026

Panchu
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aman Singh Visen, Satyendra Kumar
Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar Gupta

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents State and Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for
the Gaon Sabha.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondent no.2 to remove the illegal encroachment made by encroachers
over Plot Nos. 338 area 1.1430 hectare, 333 area 0.1450 hectare and 404
area 0.1050 hectare, recorded as Banjar and Rasta in the relevant revenue
records, relating to Village Aurahawa, Tehsil Itwa, District Siddharth
Nagar.

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
Standing Counsel that in view of provisions of paragraph no. 460 of the
WPIL No. 1271 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 18, 2026
Anil

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…