Allahabad High Court
RAMDAVARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
A writ petition for compliance or execution of a decree under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act cannot be entertained; the petitioner must pursue execution through the procedures prescribed in the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Summary
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Tehsil Nizamabad and the District Magistrate, Azamgarh to enforce an order dated 11‑May‑2026 in a land‑holding division suit under Section 176 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The order had been passed by the trial court, but an appeal by a private respondent was pending and no interim relief had been granted by the appellate court. The petitioner argued that the authorities had failed to implement the order and therefore required the High Court’s intervention. The Court examined the statutory scheme for execution of judgments under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and the accompanying Revenue Court Manual, which prescribe specific procedures for compliance. It held that a writ petition for execution of a revenue decree is not maintainable when the appropriate execution mechanism under the Revenue Code is available. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to initiate the proper execution proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court for compliance of a decree under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act when an appeal is pending.
- Whether the procedural provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the Revenue Court Manual bar the filing of a writ petition for execution of such decree.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- mandamus
- writ of mandamus
- execution of decree
- revenue law
- land reforms
- section 176
- U.P. Revenue Code
- appellate jurisdiction
- compliance order
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 27414 of 2026
Ramdavar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.
Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State.
2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"A. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Sub
Divisional Officer, Tehsil Nizamabad to comply the order dated 11.05.2026 passed in
Case No.3644 of 2014 Computerized No.T-20141506023644 (Ramdavar and others
Vs. Ram Dhawal) under section 176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act within stipulated period
as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
B. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing District
Magistrate, Azamgarh as well as Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh to
pass appropriate order upon the application moved by petitioner for compliance of
the order dated 11.05.2026 passed in Case No.3644 of 2014 Computerized No.T-
20141506023644 (Ramdavar and others Vs. Ram Dhawal) under section 176 of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit for division of
holding under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act / 116 of U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 has been decided vide order dated 11.5.2026. He further
submitted that the appeal has been filed by private respondent no.6
against the order dated 11.5.2026 but no interim order has been granted
by the appellate Court, as such, petitioner has filed an application before
WRIC No. 27414 of 2026
2
the authority for compliance of the judgement / order dated 11.5.2026 but
no steps has been taken by the authorities. He further submitted that
appropriate direction be issued for consideration of the petitioner's
application for compliance of the order dated 11.5.2026.
4. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the records.
5. There is no dispute about the fact that the suit for division of holding
has been decided by the trial Court and appeal is pending before appellate
Court.
6. For compliance of the judgement / order / decree passed in the
proceeding under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 procedure / provision has
been prescribed under the U.P. Revenue Court Manual / U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006, as such, writ petition for compliance / execution of the
judgment/ decree/ order passed under U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act/ U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 cannot be entertained.
7. No interference is required in the matter.
8. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to initiate proper
proceeding for implementation/ execution of the final order/ judgement /
decree passed in the proceeding under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act/ U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 in accordance with law.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
September 11, 2026
Rameez
Digitally signed by :-
RAMEEZ AHMED
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…