Allahabad High Court

DAYARAMDAS AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 60 OTHERS

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

Holding

The PIL is dismissed as execution of the order must follow the procedure prescribed in Paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, and the Court will not interfere.

Summary

The petitioners filed a public interest litigation seeking a mandamus directing the State to evict illegal occupants from Araji No. 1062Sa, a 31.4170‑hectare revenue land in Ghazipur, after a Tehsildar’s order of ejectment and damages (maintained in appeal under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006) and a prior dismissal of the private respondents’ petition by this Court. The petitioners alleged that despite the orders, the authorities had taken no action. The Court observed that execution of orders under Section 67 is governed by Paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, and a PIL cannot be used to enforce such an order. Consequently, the Court dismissed the PIL, directing the petitioners to pursue the appropriate execution proceedings under the Manual.

Issues considered

Can a public interest litigation be entertained for the execution of an order passed under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006?

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67

Subjects

public interest litigation
illegal encroachment
revenue land
execution of order
Section 67
U.P. Revenue Code
Revenue Court Manual
mandamus
eviction

Judgment

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 666 of 2026

Dayaramdas And Another
                                                                  .....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus

State Of U.P. And 60 Others
                                                                .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)          : Arpit Malviya, Awadhesh Kumar
                                     Malviya
Counsel for Respondent(s)          : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.

Court No. - 55

                  HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.


1. Heard Mr. A.K. Malviya, learned Counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr.
Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for
respondent- Gaon Sabha.

2. The instant public interest litigation has been filed for
the following relief:-

"To issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to remove illegal encroachment from Araji No. 1062Sa comprising
area 31.4170 hectare recorded as Balu in the revenue record, situated in Village-
Diyara Jeevpur, Tehsil Jamaniya, District Ghazipur being used in public utility land
from the private respondent nos. 6 to 61 in pursuance to the order dated 7.9.2022
passed by this Hon'ble Court as well as eviction order dated 20.10.2023 passed by
the respondent no.4, within stipulated period."


3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in
spite of the order for ejectment and damages passed by
Tehsildar which has been maintained in appeal under
Section 67 (5) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as in
the order of this Court by way of dismissing the petition
of private respondents, the order has not been given
effect on spot. He submitted that on the application of
petitioner, twice the Committee was constituted by the
                                                                               WPIL No. 666 of 2026
                                                            2


                                    authorities but till date no action has been taken by the
                                    authorities. He submitted that authorities be directed to
                                    take immediate steps for eviction of unauthorized
                                    occupant from the plot in question.

                                    4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
                                    Counsel for the petitioners and perused the records.

                                    5. There is no dispute about the fact that order for
                                    ejectment and damages has been passed by Tehsildar
                                    which has been maintained in appeal as well as in the
                                    order passed by this Court while dismissing the petition
                                    of private respondents.

                                    6. Under para 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, the
                                    provision has been prescribed for the implementation/
                                    execution of the order passed in the proceeding under
                                    Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as such, the
                                    public interest litigation cannot be entertained for
                                    execution of the order passed under Section 67 of U.P.
                                    Revenue Code, 2006.

                                    7. No interference is required.

                                    8. The public interest litigation is dismissed with
                                    observation that appropriate proceeding as provided
                                    under Para 460 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual, can be
                                    initiated in accordance with law.


                                                                         (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
                                    March 19, 2026
                                    Vandana Y.




Digitally signed by :-
VANDANA YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…