Allahabad High Court

SUNIL TYAGIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 9 OTHERS

Decided: 30 September 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable for execution of the revenue order and must be pursued through the remedy provided in the Revenue Court Manual.

Summary

The petitioner, through a public interest litigation, sought a writ directing the State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents to enforce an order under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which ordered eviction of encroachers from certain plots in Village Talhedi Buzurg. Although the revenue authority had passed the eviction order on 24‑02‑2026, no execution had taken place. The respondents contended that a writ under Article 226 cannot be used to enforce revenue orders, relying on the Division Bench decision in Manbhavati v. State of U.P. (2020 1 AWC 789) and Brij Bhushan Rai v. State of U.P. (Writ C No. 7863 of 2018). They also pointed to 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 maintainable for execution of the revenue order and dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue the remedy under the manual. The order was dated 1 October 2026.

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.

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67(1)

Subjects

public interest litigation
illegal encroachment
U.P. Revenue Code
Section 67
execution of order
maintainability of writ
Uttar Pradesh

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2138 of 2026

Sunil Tyagi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 9 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Kumar Mishra, Vijay Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kaushal Kishore Mani

Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani, Advocate has
accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 10.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondent nos. 1 to 3 to remove the illegal encroachment made by
respondent nos. 4 to 9 over Plot Nos. 249, 254 and 257, recorded as
Parikrama Marg and Holi Ka Sthan, in the relevant revenue records,
relating to Village Talhedi Buzurg, Tehsil Deoband, District Saharanpur.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order under
Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed against
the encroachers for their eviction and recovery of damages on 24.2.2026.
However, no further action has been taken to get the land in question
vacated. The present petition is in fact for implementation of the order
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 789
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
U.P. Revenue Court Manual, the petitioner has remedy for getting the
WPIL No. 2138 of 2026
2

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.)
October 1, 2026
Ranjeet Sahu

Digitally signed by :-
RANJEET SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…