Allahabad High Court

RAMCHARITRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 ORS.

Decided: 29 September 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The writ petition is not maintainable for execution of the revenue order and is dismissed, directing the petitioner to pursue the remedy under the Revenue Court Manual.

Summary

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking a court direction to remove an illegal encroachment on Plot No.55, recorded as Banjar land, after a revenue order under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 ordered eviction on 5 February 2025 but was not implemented. The petitioner asked the High Court to enforce the revenue order. The respondents contended that such a writ is not maintainable, relying on the Division Bench judgment 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), and on paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual which provides a specific remedial procedure. The Court held that the writ petition could not be entertained for execution of a revenue order and that the petitioner must pursue the remedy prescribed in the Revenue Court Manual. Consequently, the petition was disposed, with liberty to the petitioner to seek relief through the appropriate revenue channel.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for the execution of an order passed by the revenue authorities under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Whether the High Court can direct the implementation of such revenue order or must the petitioner resort to the remedies provided under the U.P. Revenue Court Manual.

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
Revenue Court Manual
eviction

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2345 of 2026

Ramcharitra
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kartikey Dubey, Man Mohan Mishra,
Raghvendra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pradeep Singh

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 Pradeep Singh, Advocate has accepted notice
on behalf of respondent no. 4.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondent authorities to remove the illegal encroachment made by
respondent nos. 5 & 6 over Plot No.55, recorded as Banjar in the relevant
revenue records, relating to Village Samdhakhas, Tehsil Aurai, District
Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi.

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 5.2.2025.
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. 2345 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.)
September 30, 2026
Ranjeet Sahu

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…