Allahabad High Court
JAGJEET SINGH AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
A writ petition cannot be entertained for the implementation or execution of an order passed under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; such matters must be pursued through the revenue court's prescribed procedures.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to comply with an order dated 12‑Nov‑2020 passed under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and to deliver possession of the land. The petitioners argued that the order had been affirmed after an appeal was dismissed on 6‑Nov‑2024, and therefore the court should enforce it. The respondents contended that the petition did not specify whether a revision or writ had been filed against the appellate order and that the writ petition was not the proper vehicle for execution. The court held that under Paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, execution of orders under the Revenue Code must be pursued through the prescribed revenue proceedings, not by a writ petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to initiate appropriate execution proceedings under the Revenue Code.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained for the execution of an order passed under Section 30 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 after the appellate order has been dismissed.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 30
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- execution of revenue order
- Section 30
- U.P. Revenue Code
- revenue law
- procedural law
- implementation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 26850 of 2026
Jagjeet Singh And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Om Sharan Goswami, Pravesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Singh
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sunil Kuma Singh,
learned Counsel for respondent- Gaon Sabha and Mr. Hari Mohan
Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State
respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the concerned respondents to consider/ compliance
of the order dated 12.11.2020 within specific/ stipulated time
as fixed by this Hon'ble Court and the possession of the
petitioner's land regarding the aforementioned plot be
delivered to the petitioner, following a measurement of the
land and based on the aforesaid orders and reports."
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceeding under Section
30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 initiated at the instance of the
petitioner has been decided in favour of the petitioner on 12.11.2020.
He submitted that appeal filed against the order dated 12.11.2020
has been dismissed on 6.11.2024, as such, direction should be
issued for compliance of the order dated 12.11.2020.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
State and learned Counsel for respondent- Gaon Sabha submitted
that there is no averment in the writ petition as to whether the revision
or writ petition has been filed against the appellate order dated
WRIC No. 26850 of 2026
2
6.11.2024 passed in the aforementioned proceeding. They further
submitted that writ petition for compliance of the order cannot be
entertained.
5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for
the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State,
learned Counsel for Gaon Sabha and perused the records.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that order under Section 30 of
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been passed on 12.11.2020 and
appeal/ revision filed against the order dated 12.11.2020 has been
dismissed on 6.11.2025.
7. Under Para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, the
provision has been prescribed for implementation/ execution of the
order passed in the proceeding of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as
such, writ petition cannot be entertained for implementation/
execution of the order passed in the proceeding under U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, present
petition stands disposed of finally with the liberty to petitioner to
initiate proper proceeding for implementation/ execution of the final
order passed under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
September 8, 2026
Vandana Y.
Digitally signed by :-
VANDANA YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…