Allahabad High Court

SHIV MURAT PATELversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The High Court held that a writ petition for execution of a revenue order is not maintainable and must be pursued through the remedies provided under the U.P. Revenue Court Manual.

Summary

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking a direction to the respondents to remove illegal encroachments on Plot Nos. 484 and 485 in Sikandarpur village. The petitioner relied on an order passed under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for eviction and recovery of damages, which had not been implemented. The respondents' standing counsel argued that, based on the 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), a writ petition cannot be used to enforce revenue orders and that the remedy lies in the provisions of paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. The Court agreed, holding that the writ petition was not maintainable for execution of the revenue order. Consequently, the petition was disposed, with the Court directing the petitioner to pursue the appropriate remedy 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(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
Whether the petitioner must resort to the procedure prescribed in paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual for execution of the revenue order

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67(1)

Subjects

public interest litigation
U.P. Revenue Code
Section 67
illegal encroachment
eviction
execution of order
Revenue Court Manual
writ petition

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2329 of 2026

Shiv Murat Patel
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Yadav, Ashutosh Kumar,
Raj Kishore Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, C.S.C.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 5.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondent nos.2 to 4 to remove the illegal encroachment made by
encroachers over Plot Nos. 484 and 485, recorded as Nali and Chakroad
in the relevant revenue records, relating to Village Sikandarpur, Tehsil
Soraon, District Prayagraj, respectively.

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 respondent nos. 6 & 7 for their eviction and recovery of damages on
8.4.2026. However, no further action has been taken to get the land in
question vacated, despite the fact that it has not been challenged before
any court or authority. 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
WPIL No. 2329 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.)
September 29, 2026
Ranjeet Sahu

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…