Allahabad High Court
DAYANANDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable for execution of the revenue order and is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondent authority to consider and decide applications filed on 06.01.2022 and 24.06.2022 for implementing an order dated 16.11.2021 passed under Section 38(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner argued that the revenue order had not been implemented. The State raised a preliminary objection that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a writ for execution of revenue orders, relying on the Division Bench decision 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 Court held that the petition was not maintainable for execution of a revenue order and dismissed it, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the concerned authority for relief. The order was dated 6 May 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for the execution of an order passed by a revenue authority under Section 38(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
- Whether the petitioner can be directed by the Court to consider and decide pending applications for implementation of the revenue order
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 38(4)
Subjects
- mandamus
- writ petition
- U.P. Revenue Code
- Section 38(4)
- implementation of order
- maintainability
- civil procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17835 of 2026
Dayanand
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brijesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents and perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for following relief:
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding
the Respondent No.3 to consider and decide the
applications/representations dated 06.01.2022 and 24.06.2022 (filed for
implementation of the appellate order) submitted by the petitioner, which
are still pending before him, for implementation of the order dated
16.11.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration),
Second, Meerut Division, Meerut in Appeal Case No. 1485 of 2020-21,
Computerised Case No. C2021-1100001485 (Dayanand and Others vs.
State of U.P.), under Section 38(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,
relating to Village Dhaulana, Tehsil Dhaulana, District Hapur, within
such stipulated time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an order has
been passed under Section 38(4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on 16.11.2021
but the same could not be implemented.
4. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel for
the State that the writ petition is not maintainable for execution of orders
passed by the Revenue Court in view of the judgment of Division Bench of
this Court in case of Manbhavati Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in
2020 1 AWC 789A and Writ C No. 7863 of 2018 (Brij Bhushan Rai v.
WRIC No. 17835 of 2026
2
State of U.P. and 6 others).
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner
to approach the authority concerned for redressal of his grievance.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
May 6, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…