Allahabad High Court
FAHIM KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 8 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
A writ petition is not maintainable for execution of revenue orders; the petitioner must resort to the remedy provided under the U.P. Revenue Court Manual.
Summary
The petitioner, Fahim Khan, filed a public interest litigation seeking a court direction to enforce two orders dated 30 September 2023 and 30 September 2019, issued under Section 122B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 for eviction of encroachers and recovery of damages. The petitioner alleged that the revenue authorities had failed to implement those orders. The respondents raised a preliminary objection, relying on the Division‑Bench judgments 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), contending that a writ petition is not the proper vehicle for execution of revenue orders. They further pointed to paragraph 460 of the U.P. 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 that purpose and declined to interfere, disposing the petition while allowing the petitioner to pursue the remedy prescribed in the manual. The petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for the execution of orders passed by revenue authorities under Section 122B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Public Interest Litigation
- Execution of revenue orders
- Eviction
- Land reforms
- U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act
- Writ petition maintainability
- Revenue Court Manual
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2269 of 2026
Fahim Khan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 8 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lal Ji Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pradeep Singh
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Lal Ji Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Sri Pradeep Singh, Advocate,
has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Gaon Sabha.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent
authorities to implement the orders dated 30.09.2023 and 30.09.2019
passed in proceedings under Section 122B of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 for eviction of encroachers and
recovery of damages.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 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 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 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:
WPIL No. 2269 of 2026
2
"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 above, 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.)
September 23, 2026
Ashok Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…