Allahabad High Court
URMILA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 25 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable for execution of the revenue court order and is therefore dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Urmila Devi, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondent to comply with an interim order dated 23.02.2026 issued under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and to remove an illegal tin-shed. The petitioner alleged that despite the trial court's order, the respondents had failed to implement it. The respondents raised a preliminary objection, contending that the writ petition was not maintainable for execution of revenue court orders, relying on the Division Bench judgment in Manbhavati v. State of U.P. (2020 1 AWC 789A) and the earlier writ (Brij Bhushan Rai v. State of U.P., Writ C No. 7863 of 2018). The High Court examined the precedent and concluded that the writ petition was indeed barred by the earlier decisions. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the S.D.M. Bhadohi within two weeks for any further relief.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for the execution of an order passed by a revenue court under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 116
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- Section 116
- U.P. Revenue Code
- execution of order
- maintainability
- preliminary objection
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17388 of 2026
Urmila Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 25 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shiv Naresh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pradeep Singh
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed seeking following relief :-
"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2
to comply the order dated 23.02.2026 passed by respondent no.2 in Case No. 5860 of
2022, Computerize Case No.T202216670505860 (Urmila Devi Versus Bhaiyalal and
others) Under Section 116, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and further direct to respondent
no.2 remove the illegal Tin-shed which was done after said order.."
3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite an interim
order granted in proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by
the trial Court, the same has not been complied with by the respondents.
4. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that the
instant writ petition is not maintainable for execution of orders passed by Revenue
Court in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of
Manbhavati v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2020 1 AWC 789A and Writ
C No. 7863 of 2018 (Brij Bhushan Rai v. State of U.P. and 6 others).
5. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to
move an appropriate application for redressal of his grievances within two weeks. In
case such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided by the
S.D.M. Bhadohi, in accordance with law, expeditiously, after ensuring service of
notice upon all the respondents and after providing opportunity of hearing to all the
parties provided there is no other legal impediment.
May 5, 2026
Rishabh
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RISHABH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…