Allahabad High Court
DEENA NATHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable; execution must be sought under paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual.
Summary
The petitioner, Deena Nath, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the revenue authority to record his name on a land plot in accordance with a final decree in a suit filed under Section 229‑B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The decree had been passed by the trial court, but the petitioner alleged that the authority had taken no steps to implement it. The respondents contended that the writ petition for execution of the decree was not maintainable. The Court held that execution of a decree under Section 229‑B (or Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code) is governed by paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, not by a writ of mandamus. Consequently, the petition could not be entertained as a writ proceeding. The Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to initiate the appropriate proceeding under the Revenue Court Manual.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition for mandamus is maintainable for the execution of a decree passed under Section 229‑B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
- Whether the appropriate remedy for execution lies in the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual (para 460) rather than a writ jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 144
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Court Manual — s. para 39, para 460
- Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act — s. 229-B
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- execution of decree
- U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
- U.P. Revenue Code
- Revenue Court Manual
- civil procedure
- land record amendment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 27496 of 2026
Deena Nath
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devbratt Yadav, Ram Pratap Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rameshwar Prasad Shukla
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Akash Yadav, learned counsel, holding the brief of Mr.
Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manoj
Kumar Mishra, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents
and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the
respondent-gaon sabha.
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 authority to take a decision by invoking the
provisions of Para 39 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual in
time frame without any further delay by changing the entries
in pursuance to the final decree by recording the name of the
petitioner over the plot being Plot no.1, area 0.226 hect.,
situated in Sagrahi (Jiyasad) Pargana Beladaulatabad, Tehsil
Lalganj, District Azamgarh in better interest of justice"
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that judgment and decree
passed in the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act
dated 28.3.1997 should be given effect in the records. He submitted
that petitioner filed an application before the authority but no steps
have been taken, as such, appropriate direction be issued to the
authorities to take appropriate decision for implementation of the
order passed in the suit proceeding under Section 229-B of the U.P.
Z.A. & L.R. Act.
WRIC No. 27496 of 2026
2
4. Learned standing counsel for the State and the counsel for the
Gaon Sabha submitted that the instant writ petition for
implementation/execution of the order passed in the proceeding
under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act is not maintainable.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the records.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that suit under Section 229-B of
the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act filed by the petitioner was decreed by the trial
court.
7. For execution of the judgment/ decree/ order passed in the
proceeding under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act/ Section
144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, remedy is provided under
paragraph 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, as such, the
instant writ petition cannot be maintained for
implementation/execution of the order passed in the proceeding
under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act/ Section 144 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with observation that
proper proceeding can be initiated according to the provisions
contained under Para 460 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual in
accordance with law.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
September 11, 2026
C.Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
CHANDRA PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…